(Vote): Animal wellfare (Vote): Jewish and Muslim traditions
Centrist Dutch lawmakers worked behind the scenes to amend legislation that would outlaw centuries-old Jewish and Muslim traditions of slaughtering animals.
As in most western countries, Dutch law dictates that butchers must stun livestock — render it unconscious — before it can be slaughtered, to minimize the animals’ pain and fear. But an exception is made for meat that must be prepared under ancient Jewish and Muslim dietary laws and practices. These demand that animals be slaughtered while still awake, by swiftly cutting the main arteries of their necks with razor-sharp knives.
I wish there was a third option. The issue at hand is whether it's fair to create religious exceptions to laws. For example, should you be allowed to use a specific drug as part of a religious practice that is banned for everyone else? I oppose the exception on these grounds, not "animal welfare."
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?
there was something in your constitution against that i think
They should make a judgement about whether cutting the throat with a razor is humane (I personally think it is if the guy knows what he's doing) and allow that for everyone, regardless of religious needs.
However, equally I think religious leaders should ask themselves if there is anything wrong with stunning things before you kill them. It's against tradition but so are cars, for centuries people walked everywhere. Technology moving on is a part of life, some traditions are simply an old way of doing things.
On June 28 2011 23:04 Dispersion wrote: Separation of church and state, US will never do anything about it.
Damn constitution.
By what you just said, isn't the government obligated to eliminate the practice religiously killed animals from its books ?
I don't think you're quite getting the concept of
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
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.
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?
there was something in your constitution against that i think
Oh you must have missed that this was a question about Dutch laws....not US laws. I actually do not know what their constitution allows for that or not.
Though looking at the US constitution, it has that line:
Amendment 1 of the Bill of Rights Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
And that law would seem to be prohibiting the free exercise of someone's religious belief. Does the Dutch constitution have a similar clause?
where is the source in the OP about any of this? I think we need sources referencing the dutch law and other sources describing the method involved in Kosher and Halal slaughter.
To my knowledge, in halal slaughter, the animal doesn't feel pain when it's done correctly. If the dutch government wanted to be picky, I'm sure most religious leaders wouldnt care if they were stunned first.
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.
That's a pretty interesting view, we should never change anything ever.
Get off the internet and go cook a squirrel over an open fire.
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.
To be honest, and correct me if I'm wrong, if I had to guess I'd say the law is probably aimed at preventing inhumane practices by factory farms and that the Orthodox Jewish and Muslim practices were just incidental casualties. Good on your lawmakers for including the exception; the method of slaughter is not unduly cruel and there's no reason to outlaw it.
I would be very offended if I was a faithful and practicing Jew/Muslim and my home decided to sweep the rug out from under my feet like that. Eliminating this option would force faithful and practicing Jews/Muslims to commit either what they believe to be a sin, by eating the ill-prepared meat, or leave their country.
Kinda shitty choice for the religious patrioit~ Why treat your citizens so crappily? I get that it's for "animal rights" but kosher slaughter was originally designed for their benefit. If people want to seriously get at animal malpractice then we all know this isn't what needs to be done.
On June 28 2011 23:03 KwarK wrote: They should make a judgement about whether cutting the throat with a razor is humane (I personally think it is if the guy knows what he's doing) and allow that for everyone, regardless of religious needs.
However, equally I think religious leaders should ask themselves if there is anything wrong with stunning things before you kill them. It's against tradition but so are cars, for centuries people walked everywhere. Technology moving on is a part of life, some traditions are simply an old way of doing things.
very poor analogy on your part. Cars do not equal a dietary restriction. prisons are overflowing draining peoples lives. Animals are not worth adding people to prison
On June 28 2011 23:04 Dispersion wrote: Separation of church and state, US will never do anything about it.
Damn constitution.
This is wild to me.
Why should you decide how people of a certain faith are allowed to practice their religion? I have a feeling that this poll is going to be extremely lopsided because of how it was presented, and in the general mentality of teamliquid, but it's still ridiculous to me to think that we should do anything to this practice.
Case in point, the link that the other gentleman posted here (Animals appear not to feel it).
Yes, some practices, such as the killing of apostates should not be allowed, because they infringe on basic human rights such as life, which is why muder isn't allowed.
The method in which you slaughter an animal does no such thing, and thus we shouldn't try to presume that we know enough about their faith to pass any law at all on the matter.
I find it shocking that people would even consider it. Imagine if people came up to you, and even though you held the belief that you CANNOT do something, said, "sorry, that's not the way everyone else does it, you have to be like the rest of us now."
You'd find it an affront to your dignity and your belief.
(Edit: I realize that this is in the netherlands, and not the US, but the above quote still confuses me)
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.
That's a pretty interesting view, we should never change anything ever.
Get the fuck off the internet and go cook a squirrel over an open fire.
thanks for taking what i said out of context bro. Slaughtering animals is a simple standard practice that has had no negative impact for thousands of years (someone's going to cite some random facts to counter this, but search your feelings, you know it to be true). There's no reason to change just because some people think it's mean to kill animals.
And what if I did go cook a squirrel over an open fire? You going to disrespect me for that? (Watch the Ozarks episode of No Reservations)
I find it shocking that people would even consider it. Imagine if people came up to you, and even though you held the belief that you CANNOT do something, said, "sorry, that's not the way everyone else does it, you have to be like the rest of us now."
You'd find it an affront to your dignity and your belief.
If my belief required animal torture, I don't feel like I would have much dignity.
On June 28 2011 23:04 Dispersion wrote: Separation of church and state, US will never do anything about it.
Damn constitution.
This is wild to me.
Why should you decide how people of a certain faith are allowed to practice their religion? I have a feeling that this poll is going to be extremely lopsided because of how it was presented, and in the general mentality of teamliquid, but it's still ridiculous to me to think that we should do anything to this practice.
Case in point, the link that the other gentleman posted here (Animals appear not to feel it).
Yes, some practices, such as the killing of apostates should not be allowed, because they infringe on basic human rights such as life, which is why muder isn't allowed.
The method in which you slaughter an animal does no such thing, and thus we shouldn't try to presume that we know enough about their faith to pass any law at all on the matter.
I find it shocking that people would even consider it. Imagine if people came up to you, and even though you held the belief that you CANNOT do something, said, "sorry, that's not the way everyone else does it, you have to be like the rest of us now."
You'd find it an affront to your dignity and your belief.
(Edit: I realize that this is in the netherlands, and not the US, but the above quote still confuses me)
Imagine? We don't have to, that's basically all laws. This isn't about religion, it's about whether stunning an animal is necessary or not. If it is necessary then your religion doesn't matter, you have to do it. If it's not, it's your choice.
I find it shocking that people would even consider it. Imagine if people came up to you, and even though you held the belief that you CANNOT do something, said, "sorry, that's not the way everyone else does it, you have to be like the rest of us now."
You'd find it an affront to your dignity and your belief.
If my belief required animal torture, I don't feel like I would have much dignity.
This isn't animal torture, though, it's a humane method of slaughtering livestock.
I find it shocking that people would even consider it. Imagine if people came up to you, and even though you held the belief that you CANNOT do something, said, "sorry, that's not the way everyone else does it, you have to be like the rest of us now."
You'd find it an affront to your dignity and your belief.
If my belief required animal torture, I don't feel like I would have much dignity.
We're not talking about dismembering the animals and forcing their friends to watch. We're discussing humanely slaughtering them.
The Jewish/Islamic method has been cited as being a very humane way to slaughter the animal.
If you're completely against killing the animal at all, then there's no common ground we can discuss, but I feel like if you're okay with society in some way using their meat, then I honestly feel like the kosher method of slaughter is just as humane and good as electrocuting them with a stun gun, then killing them.
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.
I find it shocking that people would even consider it. Imagine if people came up to you, and even though you held the belief that you CANNOT do something, said, "sorry, that's not the way everyone else does it, you have to be like the rest of us now."
You'd find it an affront to your dignity and your belief.
If my belief required animal torture, I don't feel like I would have much dignity.
This isn't animal torture, though, it's a humane method of slaughtering livestock.
So, then is that was how we executed prisoner's on death row (capital punishment argument aside), by cutting their arteries with razors, would you still agree that it was humane?
I'm not Muslim or Judaic, but I'd side with having the food allowed. Those animals were gonna get killed by humans for food 1 way or another, pretending that we're giving them any useful rights is just straight up pretentious. Let's just admit that we slaughter animals be done with it.
On June 28 2011 23:04 Dispersion wrote: Separation of church and state, US will never do anything about it.
Damn constitution.
This is wild to me.
Why should you decide how people of a certain faith are allowed to practice their religion? I have a feeling that this poll is going to be extremely lopsided because of how it was presented, and in the general mentality of teamliquid, but it's still ridiculous to me to think that we should do anything to this practice.
Case in point, the link that the other gentleman posted here (Animals appear not to feel it).
Yes, some practices, such as the killing of apostates should not be allowed, because they infringe on basic human rights such as life, which is why muder isn't allowed.
The method in which you slaughter an animal does no such thing, and thus we shouldn't try to presume that we know enough about their faith to pass any law at all on the matter.
I find it shocking that people would even consider it. Imagine if people came up to you, and even though you held the belief that you CANNOT do something, said, "sorry, that's not the way everyone else does it, you have to be like the rest of us now."
You'd find it an affront to your dignity and your belief.
The idea is to make all butchers comply with the same law. There was an exception built in for specific religious practices, but they're trying to remove it. They didn't create restrictions on butchering in order to prevent these religious practices. They're just trying to make everyone comply with the same law.
I also think analogies to the US first amendment should stop. There are really two reasons: 1) This is a Dutch Law, not American. Argue about it on its own merits and within the Dutch legal system. 2) People appear to have no clue what the first amendment actually says. I'm not talking about the text itself, but the 200+ years of legal precedent since. For example, this issue would have a clear outcome in American courts (and might in Dutch courts as well). + Show Spoiler +
In Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), the Supreme Court required that states have a "compelling interest" in refusing to accommodate religiously motivated conduct. The case involved Adele Sherbert, who was denied unemployment benefits by South Carolina because she refused to work on Saturdays, something forbidden by her Seventh-day Adventist faith. In Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), the Court ruled that a law that "unduly burdens the practice of religion" without a compelling interest, even though it might be "neutral on its face," would be unconstitutional.
The "compelling interest" doctrine became much narrower in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), that as long as a law does not target a particular religious practice it does not violate the Free Exercise Clause. In Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993), the Supreme Court ruled Hialeah had passed an ordinance banning ritual slaughter, a practice central to the Santería religion, while providing exceptions for some practices such as the kosher slaughter. Since the ordinance was not "generally applicable," the Court ruled that it was subject to the compelling interest test, which it failed to meet, and was therefore declared unconstitutional. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Pay close attention to the differences between Employment Division v. Smith and Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah. Unless a similar case made it to the Supreme Court, it would be decided along these lines.
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.
I believe that any method which makes the animal feel unnecessary pain when butchered should be forbidden and therefore i think halal and kosher butchering should be forbidden aswell. There are simply much more humane and better alternatives
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 find it shocking that people would even consider it. Imagine if people came up to you, and even though you held the belief that you CANNOT do something, said, "sorry, that's not the way everyone else does it, you have to be like the rest of us now."
You'd find it an affront to your dignity and your belief.
If my belief required animal torture, I don't feel like I would have much dignity.
This isn't animal torture, though, it's a humane method of slaughtering livestock.
So, then is that was how we executed prisoner's on death row (capital punishment argument aside), by cutting their arteries with razors, would you still agree that it was humane?
I cannot speak to European practices but on the whole the way animals are treated in slaughter houses in the US is abhorrent. Many of the practices done by the usual slaugther houses and farms are things that are banned by Muslim law(cannot speak to Jewish law, I used to be Muslim though). Things like feeding animals ground up dead animal carcasses, feeding them waste and giving them waste to drink and skinning them alive. Granted most humane slaughter laws in the US have been repeal because of farm PACs. Point being at least in the US Halal butchers take better care of their animals. And apparently some use stunning first. The problem with it for Muslims is that the whole point is to avoid causes the animal any uneccessary harm.
According to Islamic tradition, the animal is brought to the place of slaughter and laid down gently so as to not injure it. The blade must be kept hidden until the very last moment while the jugular of the animal is felt. The conventional method used to slaughter the animal involves cutting the large arteries in the neck along with the esophagus and vertebrate trachea with one swipe of an non-serrated blade. Care must be taken that the nervous system is not damaged, as this may cause the animal to die before exsanguination has taken place. While blood is draining, the animal is not handled until it has died. If any other method is used its meat will not be halal.
So some Muslims are using stunning. The emphasis on the slaughter is to avoid any unneccasry pain to the animal. The arguments against stunning beforehand is accidentally killing the animal by electrocution.
I did my part trying to present the counter argument. My thoughts are if some are already using a "fail-safe" stun method, ban the killings before stunning to force the other ones to adapt.
You guys have got to be kidding. Do you know how cruelly corporations treat animals? Its not just about how they're killed, its about how they're treated when they're alive too. I come from an Islamic family, I can guarantee you that halal prepared meat is FAR more humane than non-religious meat.
I think these dutch law makers need to see how Faux Gras is prepared or Kobe Beef where they break the knee caps of the little baby cows and let them dangle so the meat is tender first..
Don't get your hopes up. Ever since BSE it is forbidden to sell, buy or use (in scientific research for example) brains of cows, sheep etc., but all ministries and the police are turning a blind eye on the matter when it comes to Muslims - you can buy lamb brain for 2,50€ at the Turkish butcher's shop just around the corner, for instance (it was already rotting, too, disgusting!).
On June 28 2011 23:04 Dispersion wrote: Separation of church and state, US will never do anything about it.
Damn constitution.
This is wild to me.
Why should you decide how people of a certain faith are allowed to practice their religion? I have a feeling that this poll is going to be extremely lopsided because of how it was presented, and in the general mentality of teamliquid, but it's still ridiculous to me to think that we should do anything to this practice.
Case in point, the link that the other gentleman posted here (Animals appear not to feel it).
Yes, some practices, such as the killing of apostates should not be allowed, because they infringe on basic human rights such as life, which is why muder isn't allowed.
The method in which you slaughter an animal does no such thing, and thus we shouldn't try to presume that we know enough about their faith to pass any law at all on the matter.
I find it shocking that people would even consider it. Imagine if people came up to you, and even though you held the belief that you CANNOT do something, said, "sorry, that's not the way everyone else does it, you have to be like the rest of us now."
You'd find it an affront to your dignity and your belief.
The idea is to make all butchers comply with the same law. There was an exception built in for specific religious practices, but they're trying to remove it. They didn't create restrictions on butchering in order to prevent these religious practices. They're just trying to make everyone comply with the same law.
I also think analogies to the US first amendment should stop. There are really two reasons: 1) This is a Dutch Law, not American. Argue about it on its own merits and within the Dutch legal system. 2) People appear to have no clue what the first amendment actually says. I'm not talking about the text itself, but the 200+ years of legal precedent since. For example, this issue would have a clear outcome in American courts (and might in Dutch courts as well). + Show Spoiler +
In Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), the Supreme Court required that states have a "compelling interest" in refusing to accommodate religiously motivated conduct. The case involved Adele Sherbert, who was denied unemployment benefits by South Carolina because she refused to work on Saturdays, something forbidden by her Seventh-day Adventist faith. In Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), the Court ruled that a law that "unduly burdens the practice of religion" without a compelling interest, even though it might be "neutral on its face," would be unconstitutional.
The "compelling interest" doctrine became much narrower in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), that as long as a law does not target a particular religious practice it does not violate the Free Exercise Clause. In Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993), the Supreme Court ruled Hialeah had passed an ordinance banning ritual slaughter, a practice central to the Santería religion, while providing exceptions for some practices such as the kosher slaughter. Since the ordinance was not "generally applicable," the Court ruled that it was subject to the compelling interest test, which it failed to meet, and was therefore declared unconstitutional. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Pay close attention to the differences between Employment Division v. Smith and Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah. Unless a similar case made it to the Supreme Court, it would be decided along these lines.
You're right, I apologize, I wasn't looking at it with a Dutch context.
I'm unfamiliar with the dutch legal system, and was trying to draw parallels through my own experience.
I personally feel like the law should continue to provide exceptions for these specific methods of slaughter, and that is all.
Since this is basically a poll of whether or not you think that's right, I'll vote and i've said my part. I would personally be highly offended if something that I weren't allowed to do (through my convictions), was forced upon me by the state.
Whether or not you also hold those convictions should be irrelevant, as long as I'm not infringing upon your rights to hold your own. The slaughter in this fashion doesn't infringe upon your right to buy meat that was knocked out before it was killed, so vote with your wallet, instead of your laws.
No practice should result in something inhumane just because it's "tradition". I'm not going to argue that certain laws may or may not allow them to do such a thing, but personally, I don't agree with it.
Doesn't really matter, the lead up to slaughter is generally far worse than the actual slaughter anyway. Intensive farming is a far larger problem than this anyway.
I find it shocking that people would even consider it. Imagine if people came up to you, and even though you held the belief that you CANNOT do something, said, "sorry, that's not the way everyone else does it, you have to be like the rest of us now."
You'd find it an affront to your dignity and your belief.
If my belief required animal torture, I don't feel like I would have much dignity.
We're not talking about dismembering the animals and forcing their friends to watch. We're discussing humanely slaughtering them.
The Jewish/Islamic method has been cited as being a very humane way to slaughter the animal.
If you're completely against killing the animal at all, then there's no common ground we can discuss, but I feel like if you're okay with society in some way using their meat, then I honestly feel like the kosher method of slaughter is just as humane and good as electrocuting them with a stun gun, then killing them.
I'm not against killing animals for food. But I want to know that it is done in the most quick and painless way possible. Cows that are slaughtered kosher are cut by the neck and hung upside down until they die from blood loss. If you have the stomach for it, sit through the movie "Earthlings" to see what these forms of slaughter really look like (I'm not preaching vegetarianism, I love meat).
The Jewish/Islamic method has been cited as being a very humane way to slaughter the animal.
Let's not get into a citation thing, as I've looked and there is evidence that says that it is both a horrible AND terrifically humane method of slaughter. I'm just saying I've seen it, and it looks like agony.
The law actually has a exception if the other method used is as painless as slaughtering the unconcious animals. However it is up to the jews and muslim to show this. (Is this even possible)
Edit: Ok the law has just got passed with the exeption mentioned.
On June 28 2011 23:40 Piy wrote: Doesn't really matter, the lead up to slaughter is generally far worse than the actual slaughter anyway. Intensive farming is a far larger problem than this anyway.
Amendment 1 of the Bill of Rights Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
And that law would seem to be prohibiting the free exercise of someone's religious belief. Does the Dutch constitution have a similar clause?
not a specialist in law / US law, but as far as I know your supreme court has ruled mutliple times that "neutral laws" in this case cruelty against animals, which conflict with religious freedom are constitutional.
other example: anti polygamy law (Edmunds Act) conflicted with (at that time) mormons "only clean way" to marry, but was considered constitutional.
This is a Dutch Law, not American. Argue about it on its own merits and within the Dutch legal system.
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
On June 28 2011 23:30 NintendoStar wrote: You guys have got to be kidding. Do you know how cruelly corporations treat animals? Its not just about how they're killed, its about how they're treated when they're alive too. I come from an Islamic family, I can guarantee you that halal prepared meat is FAR more humane than non-religious meat.
My thoughts exactly. Factory farming is far more cruel than ritualistic slaughter. But I guess it's easier to go after religious minorities than big agribusiness. Fcking politicians.
In the U.S. this would be clearly protected under the First Amendment, or so I believe. From the OP I thought that the law was originally all-encompassing and that some lawmakers were trying to *add* the exception; my apologies if I've misunderstood. However, since we're talking about Netherlands our U.S. Constitution doesn't apply, as well it shouldn't.
Either way, I think exception for religious practice is integral to the separation of Church and State; it's simply not right to disallow the practice simply because it's not well-understood. The law's goal seems clear: require slaughter of animals be humane. The halal/kosher butchering practices are humane and so don't conflict with the law's goal; to ban them too in the name of "fairness" isn't fair at all to the set of Jews and Muslims who would be marginalized by the ban.
EDIT: Someone said the law including the exception passed. That's good; being humane to animals and allowing ritual are not incompatible.
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 government and religion should be completely separate from one another.
This, I cannot believe this discussion has to take place in these times.
Religion and government seperate. Period. Animal welfare is a law and you shouldn't be excused from it because you believe in a man in the sky. I don't see me being excused from being punished for killing bald white dudes because my religion forces me to kill at least one bald white male a day.
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.
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!
This is a Dutch Law, not American. Argue about it on its own merits and within the Dutch legal system.
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
That's fine. If you're going to make comparisons, at least understand what you're talking about. This is settled law in the US. If it is determined that the Jewish/Muslim slaughtering methods are not sufficiently humane and/or in compliance with the law, they can/will be banned. The only reason to make a comparison is if this is not something the Dutch legal system has yet to establish (which seems unlikely).
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.
On June 28 2011 23:44 Thorakh wrote: Animal welfare is a law and you shouldn't be excused from it because you believe in a man in the sky. I don't see me being excused from being punished for killing bald white dudes because my religion forces me to kill at least one bald white male a day.
That's how ridiculous this is.
Actually, you are the ridiculous one. Surely you are not equating using a method of slaughter which may or may not be "more humane" with cold blooded murder of a human being.
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.
Freedom of religion has been designated in first world countries as allowed to be practiced, but within the laws of that country. It's been like that for a fair while now.
The stun gun is to the brain (point near the upper back of the head where the skull bone is thinnest) and it renders the animal senseless, instantly, after which it is slaughtered. Where's the pain in electrocution there? Versus dying choking on your own blood and unable to breathe.
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.
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.
Depends what matters to what people. Thousnads of years of culture or the pain of an animal. I dont get why its such a big deal to not to stun it. Either way it get chopped up, cooked, and eaten.
On June 28 2011 23:44 Thorakh wrote: Animal welfare is a law and you shouldn't be excused from it because you believe in a man in the sky. I don't see me being excused from being punished for killing bald white dudes because my religion forces me to kill at least one bald white male a day.
That's how ridiculous this is.
Actually, you are the ridiculous one. Surely you are not equating using a method of slaughter which may or may not be "more humane" with cold blooded murder of a human being.
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.
If were to be sent in front of a jury made up by citizens from the 2200th century they would be ashamed that we delayed this law (ban on halal) so long. My favourite futuristic society (startrek) would not tolerate such pre-industrial behavioural and neither should contemporary societies do.
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 government and religion should be completely separate from one another.
This, I cannot believe this discussion has to take place in these times.
Religion and government seperate. Period. Animal welfare is a law and you shouldn't be excused from it because you believe in a man in the sky. I don't see me being excused from being punished for killing bald white dudes because my religion forces me to kill at least one bald white male a day.
That's how ridiculous this is.
Do you believe humans are equal to animals ? because clearly we are not
On June 28 2011 23:53 Marcus420 wrote: stupid law. we;ve been butchering animals for thousands of years. period.
survival of the fittest.
You should really read the op - it's not the slaughter that is being discussed, it is the method of slaughter where one is to stun the animal rendering it unconcious and the other is to let it bleed out whilst fully concious... I don't know which is worse - someone has probably conducted a study if I was had to elect one of these methods for myself I would probably ask to be stunned.
I think people don't quite understand what the concept of a secular state means... it doesn't mean that religion has no rights since religious groups are still part of the democracy.... it means that the laws of god or whatever the faith is about, cannot interfere with the laws of government..... I'm an atheist but even I can see that the question in the OP is horribly biased and pretty stupid imo.
If an animal is about to be killed for me to eat, do I really care much about it's "state of mind" right before death? Nope, not really. I don't really care about Jewish or Muslim traditions, but if that's what they want to do, why should I try to stop them?
Yeah.. and I'm sure that same Jury would be more ashamed that Humans dropped 2 Nuclear bombs on their own kind. Not over how they prepared their supper.
It's a good law. Especially since it removes a weird exception that was in place in its previous incarnation. The previous law on slaughter of livestock pretty much said "inhumane slaughter is not permitted, with the exception of Islamic and Jewish butchers that prepare meat in the halal/kosher style." In fact, non-Muslim butchers were not allowed to slaughter livestock in the halal style (similarly for non-Jewish butchers wanting to use the kosher style).
The new law basically removes this weird exception and says "Inhumane slaughter is not permitted". The amendment that was added last-minute says that ritual slaughter is still okay, provided that it is proven that the animal does not suffer more than when it's slaughtered in the standard way. How this proof has to be carried out is not specified, but the burden of proof lies with the groups that want to perform ritual slaughter.
So in essence, it removes a tiny little bit of religious freedom in exchange for a small increase in animal welfare. In a country where atheists are the majority, I'm cool with that. Freedom of religion is important, but only as long as it doesn't interfere with the existing laws of the country. There being exceptions for religious groups in laws sets a dangerous precedent.
On June 28 2011 23:59 Vortigan wrote: I think people don't quite understand what the concept of a secular state means... it doesn't mean that religion has no rights since religious groups are still part of the democracy.... it means that the laws of god or whatever the faith is about, cannot interfere with the laws of government..... I'm an atheist but even I can see that the question in the OP is horribly biased and pretty stupid imo.
I am not an atheist, but I admire and respect your intellectual honesty. The poll is horribly biased.
This issue isn't exactly about tradition vs animal welfare.
The problem is that "stunning" can lead to fatal brain damage in the animal and thus it would be considered "eating carrion" which is prohibited. Other methods of anesthesia may complicate exsanguination and blood residue in the meat would make it non-halal.
Apparently the Halal Food Authority is taking this debate rather seriously and is looking into available methods that allow for both animal welfare and halal food.
I hope the Dutch lawmakers will use an equal measure of moderation in their approach to this issue.
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?
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".
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?
On June 28 2011 23:44 Thorakh wrote: Animal welfare is a law and you shouldn't be excused from it because you believe in a man in the sky. I don't see me being excused from being punished for killing bald white dudes because my religion forces me to kill at least one bald white male a day.
That's how ridiculous this is.
Actually, you are the ridiculous one. Surely you are not equating using a method of slaughter which may or may not be "more humane" with cold blooded murder of a human being.
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.
your just going to piss off a lot of people so that animals can die in a different way... as long as they arn't intentionally abused then the practice is fine.
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.
On June 28 2011 23:44 Thorakh wrote: Animal welfare is a law and you shouldn't be excused from it because you believe in a man in the sky. I don't see me being excused from being punished for killing bald white dudes because my religion forces me to kill at least one bald white male a day.
That's how ridiculous this is.
Actually, you are the ridiculous one. Surely you are not equating using a method of slaughter which may or may not be "more humane" with cold blooded murder of a human being.
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.
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.
Don't ya hate when you log on to TL to watch some Starcraft streams and find yourself arguing for a religion you no longer belong to? lol.
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.
Either you are a hardline vegan and stand against killing animals period or you are fine with halal as a method of slaughter. I really don't see any middle ground where you are not being a complete hypocrite.
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.
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.
dude drowning ants was like my favorite summer activity lol. guess i'm a sick fuck
On June 28 2011 23:44 Thorakh wrote: Animal welfare is a law and you shouldn't be excused from it because you believe in a man in the sky. I don't see me being excused from being punished for killing bald white dudes because my religion forces me to kill at least one bald white male a day.
That's how ridiculous this is.
Actually, you are the ridiculous one. Surely you are not equating using a method of slaughter which may or may not be "more humane" with cold blooded murder of a human being.
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.
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.
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').
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.
dude drowning ants was like my favorite summer activity lol. guess i'm a sick fuck
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.
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.
This is a Dutch Law, not American. Argue about it on its own merits and within the Dutch legal system.
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
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.
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.
dude drowning ants was like my favorite summer activity lol. guess i'm a sick fuck
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
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.
dude drowning ants was like my favorite summer activity lol. guess i'm a sick fuck
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?
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
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
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 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 00:20 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.
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 00:10 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
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
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 00:20 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 23:27 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.
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 00:20 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.
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 00:20 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Perhaps it would have been prudent for you to actually research the topic before mouthing off baseless speculation and spewing insults in every direction.
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.
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.
Relative morality as an argument is paper thin. Using cultural differences as an excuse for immoral behavior is not a valid argument. Maybe if butchering these animals had some demonstrable benefit to the people or was a preventative measure to prevent necessary livestock/farmland from being damaged. But they are just doing it without a valid reason. Because the bible says so, is not a valid reason to do something morally speaking.
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.
The poll should say "which is worth less", not "which is worth more". And anyway it's irrelevant, you can't go round telling the whole world what to do. I don't respect their traditions but banning it is stupid too. Why piss off a whole portion of society for no good reason? This reminds me of the BNP going round protesting about this. It has nothing to do with animal rights and everything to do with xenophobia.
The real problem is with the people who want to institute their beliefs about protecting the animals on the world through the force of the government gun. This mob rule of the majority is being seen as they always know what is best. We really need people to stop inserting themselves in others lives through the government. Let people govern themselves unless they are physically hurting you.
I don't really see how killing animals in a "humane" way is really animal welfare since you are still killing the animals, but whatever.
Why does the slaughter of animals need to be humane? Why should animals be given humane treatment? Animals are lower than humans. They deserve to be treated like animals, not humans.
Edit: I don't see why the Dutch government feels the need to impose its will on the butchers. Slaughtering the animals in this fashion is a harmless practice (to human beings, that is), so I don't know why there needs to be laws against it.
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.
edit:
On June 29 2011 00:57 Ferrose wrote: I don't really see how killing animals in a "humane" way is really animal welfare since you are still killing the animals, but whatever.
Why does the slaughter of animals need to be humane? Why should animals be given humane treatment? Animals are lower than humans. They deserve to be treated like animals, not humans.
Edit: I don't see why the Dutch government feels the need to impose its will on the butchers. Slaughtering the animals in this fashion is a harmless practice (to human beings, that is), so I don't know why there needs to be laws against it.
Even considering religious tradition on this matter is against the idea of separation of church and state. Of course, in The Netherlands people don't really care about such idealist things. I'm very pleasantly surprised this might actually happen.
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.
does the current law in the Netherlands make kosher hot dogs a controlled substance?
do you have to show affiliation to buy them or can any gentile with a wild hair pick up some kosher pastrami...maybe some spicy mustard
edit: ok this is me being serious: its not like jews and musims are going to eat unclean meat anyway so they are going to pay a premium for imported properly prepared meat. is that fair? they are still going to be eating animals that were awake when killed and then again only at a higher price and with additional tariffs applied by the dutch governement. obvious persecution. jews and muslims do not eat properly prepared meats because they thinks its cute or nice they do so to carry favor with their respective gods and lets be honest, because you dont believe in what they believe in doesnt mean you can arbitrarily make part of what they do as a part of their beliefs illegal...its perfectly asinine to suggest that they should not be allowed to kill their animals a certain way because peta freak lady gets squeamish when something gives birth.
honesty if you didnt get the last reference you shouldnt be posting some convoluted moralist argument here and be expected to be taken seriously.
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.
Religion is such a mine field that I think we should just stick to the traditions, to avoid any trouble. Also the throat slitting, if done professionaly, is painless and we do not see muslims complaining about the traditions we have.
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.
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.
Relative morality as an argument is paper thin. Using cultural differences as an excuse for immoral behavior is not a valid argument. Maybe if butchering these animals had some demonstrable benefit to the people or was a preventative measure to prevent necessary livestock/farmland from being damaged. But they are just doing it without a valid reason. Because the bible says so, is not a valid reason to do something morally speaking.
First, it is a completely valid reason for the adherents of the religion; maybe you don't think so but they would tell you that you're wrong. Second, are you arguing that butchering the animals serves no purpose? They're slaughtered for food, that is a demonstrable benefit; if you weren't, skip to point three. Third, the religiously mandated process is more humane and less painful than zapping them with a stun gun and then killing them.
Sometimes there are reasons for traditions; for example, PETA introduced a method for goat castration that was supposedly "more humane" than the traditional method (cutting open the sack and pulling the testes out with your teeth). While the traditional method hurts the goats *now*, the PETA method lead to the goat suffering over the span of weeks, while the traditionally castrated goats were fine within hours.
EDIT: They had a goat farming episode on Dirty Jobs; that's my source for the goat business.
On June 29 2011 00:58 Zihua wrote: Even considering religious tradition on this matter is against the idea of separation of church and state. Of course, in The Netherlands people don't really care about such idealist things. I'm very pleasantly surprised this might actually happen.
you know it's called religious freedom. Even the netherlands should have that though with that neo nazi running around in your country this law doesnt surprise me at all.
On June 29 2011 00:57 Ferrose wrote: I don't really see how killing animals in a "humane" way is really animal welfare since you are still killing the animals, but whatever.
Why does the slaughter of animals need to be humane? Why should animals be given humane treatment? Animals are lower than humans. They deserve to be treated like animals, not humans.
Edit: I don't see why the Dutch government feels the need to impose its will on the butchers. Slaughtering the animals in this fashion is a harmless practice (to human beings, that is), so I don't know why there needs to be laws against it.
Humans ARE animals for one thing. Next we know that animals feel pain, empathy, etc... so the human species is learning to adapt our culture morally to not inflict needless pain and suffering on other living things.
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 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 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 23:22 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.
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).
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.
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.
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 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.
On June 29 2011 01:36 pullarius1 wrote: Here are a couple videos of the process. Obviously fairly gruesome, NSFx etc. (Linked to avoid the youtube thumbnail)
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.
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 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.
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 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 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 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
On June 29 2011 01:36 pullarius1 wrote: Here are a couple videos of the process. Obviously fairly gruesome, NSFx etc. (Linked to avoid the youtube thumbnail)
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 02:34 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.
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?
From wikipedia about Halal: "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.[18]"
Read the whole article because there are both arguments for and against from different authors (although the against is just superstitious and lack substance to support them).
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.
On June 29 2011 01:36 pullarius1 wrote: Here are a couple videos of the process. Obviously fairly gruesome, NSFx etc. (Linked to avoid the youtube thumbnail)
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.
No, they are not. They are calling themselves kosher, but it is not how kosher method goes. They should be banned, no doubt about it, but some exceptions does not override 1000 years of traditions. You need some real evidence, that kosher/halal slaughtering are that much more inhuman than electric shocker. There should be some 3rd party control institutions with clear view on this problem, without any boundaries with PETA or religious groups, who can decide on this matter.
Again, incorrect. The slaughter depicted is 100% NOT kosher under rabbinic law. The slaughtering cut must be 100% severation first try. Look up the orthodox response to PETA to address those videos. I like the idea of this debate, but the poll is terribly done and a lot of people commenting on the slaughter practices of hallal and kosher have no idea what they are talking about.
Religions change and evolve so why make exceptions for them? Example, Mormons no longer hate black people or allow polygamy.
Even in the old testemant, guys like David and Solomon had HUNDREDS of wives and concubines, but that doesn't happen today. I don't see anyone whining or crying about tradition. Hey, slavery used to be okay too!
Humanity, compassion, progress >>>>>>>>>>> barbaric religious practices
Its absurd to allow religious arguments to decide policy
"Before the Second World War, religious slaughter was tolerated in Europe, except for four countries (Switzerland in 1893, Norway in 1930, Poland and Sweden in 1938). Religious slaughter without stunning was prohibited in several countries in Europe from 1936 to 1944 under the occupation of Nazi Germany (Germany in 1936, Italy in 1938, then in the majority of the other European countries according to the Nazi Germany occupation progress between 1940 and 1944)."
Fun fact that Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy did these regulations, wonder why .
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.
I'm sorry, but physical harm is worse than spiritual harm in this case. The physical harm that you cause by torturing animals is greater than the spiritual harm caused by not being able to torture animals.
If anything, the religious people here are the ones that need to think beyond their own self, and should care about the animal.
people should be able to eat and prepare their food however they want, as long as its not in a way that damages the eco system. i see nothing wrong with this.
people put animals on a higher regard then other humans, yet animals lack all the qualities that define us and have much different nervous systems. the way a cow or a pig feels pain is MUCH different from human pain. I bothers me to no end how people disregard this. Its the same reason no one gives a shit about stepping on bugs....
On June 29 2011 03:18 Destro wrote: people should be able to eat and prepare their food however they want, as long as its not in a way that damages the eco system. i see nothing wrong with this.
people put animals on a higher regard then other humans, yet animals lack all the qualities that define us and have much different nervous systems. the way a cow or a pig feels pain is MUCH different from human pain. I bothers me to no end how people disregard this. Its the same reason no one gives a shit about stepping on bugs....
On June 29 2011 03:18 Destro wrote: people should be able to eat and prepare their food however they want, as long as its not in a way that damages the eco system. i see nothing wrong with this.
people put animals on a higher regard then other humans, yet animals lack all the qualities that define us and have much different nervous systems. the way a cow or a pig feels pain is MUCH different from human pain. I bothers me to no end how people disregard this. Its the same reason no one gives a shit about stepping on bugs....
I give a shit about stepping on bugs. If there is an ant on the road, I'm not going to purposely step on it. I don't see why anyone would do it, as it would cause needless harm to the ant, not to mention that if the ant were 100 times as big as you, you wouldn't want it to step on you either.
And of course, that claim that animals feel pain differently is pretty meaningless because I've never heard of it, instead I've only heard the opposite so a source would be nice.
Live and let live. Don't do to others what you don't want to have done to yourself.
On June 29 2011 03:18 Destro wrote: people should be able to eat and prepare their food however they want, as long as its not in a way that damages the eco system. i see nothing wrong with this.
people put animals on a higher regard then other humans, yet animals lack all the qualities that define us and have much different nervous systems. the way a cow or a pig feels pain is MUCH different from human pain. I bothers me to no end how people disregard this. Its the same reason no one gives a shit about stepping on bugs....
What does MUCH different mean? Is that suppose the be a argument for or against this?
On June 29 2011 03:18 Destro wrote: people should be able to eat and prepare their food however they want, as long as its not in a way that damages the eco system. i see nothing wrong with this.
people put animals on a higher regard then other humans, yet animals lack all the qualities that define us and have much different nervous systems. the way a cow or a pig feels pain is MUCH different from human pain. I bothers me to no end how people disregard this. Its the same reason no one gives a shit about stepping on bugs....
In fact, insects and spiders should be regarded alot higher than mammals since they are sooooo much more important for the eco system. But you don't see PETA fight for their rights! Poor insects getting squashed for no apperent reason evil humans no humane!
On June 29 2011 03:18 Destro wrote: people should be able to eat and prepare their food however they want, as long as its not in a way that damages the eco system. i see nothing wrong with this.
people put animals on a higher regard then other humans, yet animals lack all the qualities that define us and have much different nervous systems. the way a cow or a pig feels pain is MUCH different from human pain. I bothers me to no end how people disregard this. Its the same reason no one gives a shit about stepping on bugs....
In fact, insects and spiders should be regarded alot higher than mammals since they are sooooo much more important for the eco system. But you don't see PETA fight for their rights! Poor insects getting squashed for no apperent reason evil humans no humane!
That is because insects have no appeal to the masses and therefore don't 'sell' to the general public, however important they might be.
It's sad yes, but 'saving' a panda is just more appealing to most people than saving obscure species of bug number X that plays a vital role in the ecosystem of the earth.
If there's one thing that always perplexes me, sometimes downright annoys - is the inability (refusal?) for religious cultures to evolve to a changing world, to adapt to changing cultures, to accept newfound human knowledge.
I don't understand why, for example, the muslim method of slaughter cannot be re-interpreted; indeed, the entire point of it is to pay respect to the animal and kill it in a 'sinless' manner - is this not also the point of modern animal slaughter techniques?
On June 29 2011 03:18 Destro wrote: people should be able to eat and prepare their food however they want, as long as its not in a way that damages the eco system. i see nothing wrong with this.
people put animals on a higher regard then other humans, yet animals lack all the qualities that define us and have much different nervous systems. the way a cow or a pig feels pain is MUCH different from human pain. I bothers me to no end how people disregard this. Its the same reason no one gives a shit about stepping on bugs....
I give a shit about stepping on bugs. If there is an ant on the road, I'm not going to purposely step on it. I don't see why anyone would do it, as it would cause needless harm to the ant, not to mention that if the ant were 100 times as big as you, you wouldn't want it to step on you either.
And of course, that claim that animals feel pain differently is pretty meaningless because I've never heard of it, instead I've only heard the opposite so a source would be nice.
Live and let live. Don't do to others what you don't want to have done to yourself.
this is exactly what im talking about. putting ants on the level of humans. saying you wouldnt like to be stepped on is all happy and great, but the fact is that you can only register in that brain because you are human.. an ant doesn't have this. they lack the comprehension of the situation all together.. same with cows.. i think youd see a lot of cows trampling fences of slaughter houses if they actually knew what was going on.
Its silly, because if you take out the human element, the animals die to other animals in much more savage and grotesque ways that if humans did it, there would be a lynch mob after them. But we humanize animals by pretending they are like us, and as soon as they act different from us (like they are genetically programmed to do..) they are just animals again. Its a stupid double standard that i find fascinating.
On June 29 2011 03:18 Destro wrote: people should be able to eat and prepare their food however they want, as long as its not in a way that damages the eco system. i see nothing wrong with this.
people put animals on a higher regard then other humans, yet animals lack all the qualities that define us and have much different nervous systems. the way a cow or a pig feels pain is MUCH different from human pain. I bothers me to no end how people disregard this. Its the same reason no one gives a shit about stepping on bugs....
In fact, insects and spiders should be regarded alot higher than mammals since they are sooooo much more important for the eco system. But you don't see PETA fight for their rights! Poor insects getting squashed for no apperent reason evil humans no humane!
That is because insects have no appeal to the masses and therefore don't 'sell' to the general public, however important they might be.
It's sad yes, but 'saving' a panda is just more appealing to most people than saving obscure species of bug number X that plays a vital role in the ecosystem of the earth.
the insects dont need us, they will be eating our corpses for millions of years
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.
Nice job ruining that quote for some religious bullshit.
I think traditional traditional slaughtering is still pretty humane, even by modern standards. The modern methods don't always work very well either, and animals are sometimes disassembled while still alive because the stunning doesn't always work properly. The traditional methods guarantee that the animal at least dies before butchering. In fact the Kosher and Halal laws are really a way of regulating ethical slaughter in their own right. So I think it's really kind of a non-issue. That being said, I think one should always err on the side of what is most humane rather than most traditional.
What is really at issue, at least here in the states, is how animals are raised, Almost all of the animals raised for consumption here are treated brutally up until the day they die. It's awful for the animals, the environment, and ultimately for human health. I won't go into detail here, but it is the way animals are raised, more than the way that they are slaughtered that has led to my decision not to eat factory farmed animal products (which greatly limits my consumption).
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.
I'm sorry, but physical harm is worse than spiritual harm in this case. The physical harm that you cause by torturing animals is greater than the spiritual harm caused by not being able to torture animals.
If anything, the religious people here are the ones that need to think beyond their own self, and should care about the animal.
Apology accepted, I don't see torture in animals in these religious traditions.
Again, incorrect. The slaughter depicted is 100% NOT kosher under rabbinic law. The slaughtering cut must be 100% severation first try. Look up the orthodox response to PETA to address those videos. I like the idea of this debate, but the poll is terribly done and a lot of people commenting on the slaughter practices of hallal and kosher have no idea what they are talking about.
“After carefully studying the [PETA] video, Rabbi Menachem Genack and Rabbi Yisroel Belsky, one of the OU’s distinguished poskim (rabbinic decisors), traveled to Postville, Iowa to review the procedures at the AgriProcessors plant. They found that these procedures meet all OU standards to the highest degree, and that the shochtim (rabbinic slaughters) are all highly proficient, skilled and knowledgeable."
So at least the second video is a process fully sanctioned. All the cuts look fairly clean to me, even in the first video, and the animals don't seem like they are put in any pain further than what would be associated with cutting one's throat. I haven't said anything one way or another about whether I think it's permissible, I just posted links to videos of the process. I'm sorry that the first video editorializes, but I couldn't find that footage without the text edited it.
I love how people are actually pretending to care about "animal welfare", unless you are some activist in real life, please dont get on some high moral horse here and pretend to know what your talking about. Jewish/Islamic slaughtering practices caters billions of people of those faiths and its a billion dollar industry for that matter, so its not going to stop. Euro countries are just trying to find new ways to make muslim lives more inconvenient. There are far more important issues that need to ADDRESSED let alone solved...
As is the ismalaphobe argument - and id add to that whoever accused someone of being islamaphobe is a racist douchbag, If looking at a child makes you horny your a peado, if you see a conversation about halal and think racist, your a racist.
Pain is totally subjective, int hat i mean you CANNOT in any way make a claim in another being without anthropomorphising, you are just making stuff up. 'Well a human would react lie this, and the animal does so i assume that it feels pain'
Asf or the topic, all ive eaten really in the last 10 years is hallal ... i want choice ... if peopel can choose halal meat the same place should server non halal meat. That doesnt exist though, instead people who have no religous belief get no choice because someone wrote in a book once about some bullshit. I find that to be discriminatory. Its the 21st centuary, i appreciate cultural differences need to be appreciated ... but why is it always one way?
When i goto america i have to drink shit coffee, i accept that.
On June 29 2011 03:18 Destro wrote: people should be able to eat and prepare their food however they want, as long as its not in a way that damages the eco system. i see nothing wrong with this.
people put animals on a higher regard then other humans, yet animals lack all the qualities that define us and have much different nervous systems. the way a cow or a pig feels pain is MUCH different from human pain. I bothers me to no end how people disregard this. Its the same reason no one gives a shit about stepping on bugs....
I give a shit about stepping on bugs. If there is an ant on the road, I'm not going to purposely step on it. I don't see why anyone would do it, as it would cause needless harm to the ant, not to mention that if the ant were 100 times as big as you, you wouldn't want it to step on you either.
And of course, that claim that animals feel pain differently is pretty meaningless because I've never heard of it, instead I've only heard the opposite so a source would be nice.
Live and let live. Don't do to others what you don't want to have done to yourself.
this is exactly what im talking about. putting ants on the level of humans. saying you wouldnt like to be stepped on is all happy and great, but the fact is that you can only register in that brain because you are human.. an ant doesn't have this. they lack the comprehension of the situation all together.. same with cows.. i think youd see a lot of cows trampling fences of slaughter houses if they actually knew what was going on.
The fact that animals lack the intelligence to understand what is going on does not magically mean they have no feelings and therefore are unable to suffer. In fact, you are saying that it is okay to step on a severely mentally handicapped human that cannot comprehend the situation he is in.
Its silly, because if you take out the human element, the animals die to other animals in much more savage and grotesque ways that if humans did it, there would be a lynch mob after them. But we humanize animals by pretending they are like us, and as soon as they act different from us (like they are genetically programmed to do..) they are just animals again. Its a stupid double standard that i find fascinating.
You are forgetting the fact that animals don't know any better. Not to mention that no animals beside chimps derive pleasure from torture.
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?
From wikipedia about Halal: "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.[18]"
Read the whole article because there are both arguments for and against from different authors (although the against is just superstitious and lack substance to support them).
This. I hate how religious-phobia is being taken advantage of to promote a select group's political agenda.
The entire issue and the religion vs. animal welfare debate it raises is just b/s. If they really cared for animal welfare, they should just get rid of industrial-size, conyevor-belt type butchering. Halal/kosher slaughtering requires religious incantations, which is fairly impossible to accomplish in a factory setting through machines.
I think this law is too polar to pass, but I have been surprised before...(like Switzerland banning Minarets).
I really don't know where i stand on issues like this.
We raise animals to be eaten, that is their sole purpose, if people are worried about animal welfare then surely they should be all out against this. The manner of how you kill the animal is of little consequence if it has been born simply to be eaten, the animal will be in pain yes, but it will be dead shortly anyway. I guess it really depends whether you have the technology available to you or not.
I can understand not wanting an animal raised as a pet to be in pain, you have an emotional attachment to it, it is part of the family, but some animal that you've never met that wasn't kept as a pet but at a food source is completely different.
However, I personally can't stand people who do something "because its traditional" or "because of their religion" when there is a far cleaner, safer and more humane way of achieving the same goal by using modern technology and practices. Therefore I am totally against halal/kosher because it is clinging to outdated and completely ridiculous beliefs (in my opinion, yours may differ and that's fine lol). Though if someone could show that it is equally quick and painless as modern methods, then I guess it would be fine.... if still a stupid belief behind it.
I guess my standpoint is this, you should attempt to make killing the animal as quick and painless as possible, if you are living in deepest Africa or South America and don't have access to modern technology then just slit its throat and be done with it.... if you are at a slaughter house with all the mod cons, then knock it out before you slice it open.
Is it wrong that I just enjoy the idea of getting rid of any exemptions religions enjoy from the law that the rest of us have to follow? And for this reason I voted against Islam/Judaism...
On June 29 2011 03:54 emythrel wrote: However, I personally can't stand people who do something "because its traditional" or "because of their religion" when there is a far cleaner, safer and more humane way of achieving the same goal by using modern technology and practices. Therefore I am totally against halal/kosher because it is clinging to outdated and completely ridiculous beliefs (in my opinion, yours may differ and that's fine lol).
That means you don't know what halal/kosher is. Try and read up on it before posting.
Is it wrong that I just enjoy the idea of getting rid of any exemptions religions enjoy from the law that the rest of us have to follow? And for this reason I voted against Islam/Judaism...
On June 29 2011 03:18 Destro wrote: people should be able to eat and prepare their food however they want, as long as its not in a way that damages the eco system. i see nothing wrong with this.
people put animals on a higher regard then other humans, yet animals lack all the qualities that define us and have much different nervous systems. the way a cow or a pig feels pain is MUCH different from human pain. I bothers me to no end how people disregard this. Its the same reason no one gives a shit about stepping on bugs....
I give a shit about stepping on bugs. If there is an ant on the road, I'm not going to purposely step on it. I don't see why anyone would do it, as it would cause needless harm to the ant, not to mention that if the ant were 100 times as big as you, you wouldn't want it to step on you either.
And of course, that claim that animals feel pain differently is pretty meaningless because I've never heard of it, instead I've only heard the opposite so a source would be nice.
Live and let live. Don't do to others what you don't want to have done to yourself.
this is exactly what im talking about. putting ants on the level of humans. saying you wouldnt like to be stepped on is all happy and great, but the fact is that you can only register in that brain because you are human.. an ant doesn't have this. they lack the comprehension of the situation all together.. same with cows.. i think youd see a lot of cows trampling fences of slaughter houses if they actually knew what was going on.
The fact that animals lack the intelligence to understand what is going on does not magically mean they have no feelings and therefore are unable to suffer. In fact, you are saying that it is okay to step on a severely mentally handicapped human that cannot comprehend the situation he is in.
feelings? really? ants have feelings? When one ant rubs up on another, does the ant's ex boyfriend get jealous?
not knowing better is another weird arguement because its arrogant to say that we know better and have a higher place in the food chain. Fact of the matter is, we are animals as well. Just because we like to pamper our food and hope it has a pleasant death doesn't mean that animals deserve it. Its a cultural thing that has developed.
a tiger much more prefers to hunt down and eat the animal while it still squirms and suffers. Who are we to say that we know better?
now halal for example, is one culture's interpretation of the question of how to prepare food. Who are we to say how they eat their goddamn food?
Its silly, because if you take out the human element, the animals die to other animals in much more savage and grotesque ways that if humans did it, there would be a lynch mob after them. But we humanize animals by pretending they are like us, and as soon as they act different from us (like they are genetically programmed to do..) they are just animals again. Its a stupid double standard that i find fascinating.
You are forgetting the fact that animals don't know any better. Not to mention that no animals beside chimps derive pleasure from torture.
On June 29 2011 03:54 emythrel wrote: However, I personally can't stand people who do something "because its traditional" or "because of their religion" when there is a far cleaner, safer and more humane way of achieving the same goal by using modern technology and practices. Therefore I am totally against halal/kosher because it is clinging to outdated and completely ridiculous beliefs (in my opinion, yours may differ and that's fine lol).
That means you don't know what halal/kosher is. Try and read up on it before posting.
It is based on religious beliefs, if thats you're only reason for doing it.... its stupid. I did edit my post to say that if it is equally quick and painless then its fine, even if the reasoning behind it is stupid.
On June 29 2011 03:54 emythrel wrote: However, I personally can't stand people who do something "because its traditional" or "because of their religion" when there is a far cleaner, safer and more humane way of achieving the same goal by using modern technology and practices. Therefore I am totally against halal/kosher because it is clinging to outdated and completely ridiculous beliefs (in my opinion, yours may differ and that's fine lol).
That means you don't know what halal/kosher is. Try and read up on it before posting.
It is based on religious beliefs, if thats you're only reason for doing it.... its stupid. I did edit my post to say that if it is equally quick and painless then its fine, even if the reasoning behind it is stupid.
Religious beliefs, then, are stupid? That's rather arrogant. I will not continue a discussion with you, if by the get go my reasoning is already condemned to be "stupid."
On June 29 2011 03:54 emythrel wrote: However, I personally can't stand people who do something "because its traditional" or "because of their religion" when there is a far cleaner, safer and more humane way of achieving the same goal by using modern technology and practices. Therefore I am totally against halal/kosher because it is clinging to outdated and completely ridiculous beliefs (in my opinion, yours may differ and that's fine lol).
That means you don't know what halal/kosher is. Try and read up on it before posting.
It is based on religious beliefs, if thats you're only reason for doing it.... its stupid. I did edit my post to say that if it is equally quick and painless then its fine, even if the reasoning behind it is stupid.
Religious beliefs, then, are stupid? That's rather arrogant. I will not continue a discussion with you, if by the get go my reasoning is already condemned to be "stupid."
I find it rather suprising how many stereotypical comments are coming out in this thread, a rather surreal reflection of the world as a whole. People aren't even trying to think analyticaly about the situation anymore. " I hate Islamic/Jewish traditions therefore I will vote against them". Be kind to thou neighbor is a jewish/islamic tradition so let me just vote against being kind to your neighbor /trollface.
oh well, history will always repeat itself because people dont pay attention to the past.
On June 29 2011 03:54 emythrel wrote: However, I personally can't stand people who do something "because its traditional" or "because of their religion" when there is a far cleaner, safer and more humane way of achieving the same goal by using modern technology and practices. Therefore I am totally against halal/kosher because it is clinging to outdated and completely ridiculous beliefs (in my opinion, yours may differ and that's fine lol).
That means you don't know what halal/kosher is. Try and read up on it before posting.
It is based on religious beliefs, if thats you're only reason for doing it.... its stupid. I did edit my post to say that if it is equally quick and painless then its fine, even if the reasoning behind it is stupid.
Religious beliefs, then, are stupid? That's rather arrogant. I will not continue a discussion with you, if by the get go my reasoning is already condemned to be "stupid."
Religion itself is stupid
Religion and animal welfare are both stupid. So far it hasn't been scientifically proven that animals suffer more when they are butchered halal/kosher. Therefore, it is just way easier and better to allow it (eventho its bs, as i agree with u)
On June 29 2011 03:54 emythrel wrote: However, I personally can't stand people who do something "because its traditional" or "because of their religion" when there is a far cleaner, safer and more humane way of achieving the same goal by using modern technology and practices. Therefore I am totally against halal/kosher because it is clinging to outdated and completely ridiculous beliefs (in my opinion, yours may differ and that's fine lol).
That means you don't know what halal/kosher is. Try and read up on it before posting.
It is based on religious beliefs, if thats you're only reason for doing it.... its stupid. I did edit my post to say that if it is equally quick and painless then its fine, even if the reasoning behind it is stupid.
Religious beliefs, then, are stupid? That's rather arrogant. I will not continue a discussion with you, if by the get go my reasoning is already condemned to be "stupid."
Religion itself is stupid
This is all an irrelevant red herring. If the method of slaughter does not induce pain or does not induce any more pain as "conventional" methods do, then there is no reason for the practice to be banned. Seeing as no one in this entire goddamned thread has given one credible source that shows that kosher and halal practices induce more pain than conventional methods and is inhumane, I find no reason to oppose it.
On June 29 2011 04:08 koreasilver wrote: This is all an irrelevant red herring. If the method of slaughter does not induce pain or does not induce any more pain as "conventional" methods do, then there is no reason for the practice to be banned. Seeing as no one in this entire goddamned thread has given one credible source that shows that kosher and halal practices induce more pain than conventional methods and is inhumane, I find no reason to oppose it.
Yup. It already is. The law has ALREADY PASSED. And it just limits the "inhumane slaughter" of an animal. And Kosher/Halal done right is already humane. So it doesn't violate the law anyway. And if a Rabbi or Imam is poor in their judgement and declares an actual inhumane slaughter as humane, the state will enforce. All of the anti-Semites/anti-Religious people in this thread already lost.
So.....how does this work? You shock a fairly large animal until it passes out? How do you know if its going to be completely passed out? EKG? Brain monitors?
AND how much "shock" is going to be delivered? Cows are freakin' huge, I can't imagine the voltage being a small one, or the duration being short to "fully" and "humanely" make one unconscious.
Yeah I saw this halal thing in the Zimmern show the other day. It took the animal about 10 minutes to die from bleeding out of the throat. And it was a camel ( I thought camels were restricted against this tradition....). It most certainly is NOT a humane way of killing animals, especially now that modern civilization has ways to kill them instantly. This is not an instant kill.
On June 29 2011 04:16 Deadlyhazard wrote: Yeah I saw this halal thing in the Zimmern show the other day. It took the animal about 10 minutes to die from bleeding out of the throat. And it was a camel ( I thought camels were restricted against this tradition....). It most certainly is NOT a humane way of killing animals, especially now that modern civilization has ways to kill them instantly. This is not an instant kill.
The animal has already been dead. Its just bleeding out. The blood has to go somewhere, ya know.
I like how we hold ourselves on such a high pedestal. We keep animals locked up their entire life, fed garbage food and have little space to wander in their own feces. They live this way their entire life and treated like any other resource. BUT DEAR GOD IF THEY DIE IN 2 SECONDS INSTEAD OF 1... UN-HUMANE!
On June 29 2011 04:16 Deadlyhazard wrote: Yeah I saw this halal thing in the Zimmern show the other day. It took the animal about 10 minutes to die from bleeding out of the throat. And it was a camel ( I thought camels were restricted against this tradition....). It most certainly is NOT a humane way of killing animals, especially now that modern civilization has ways to kill them instantly. This is not an instant kill.
The animal has already been dead. Its just bleeding out. The blood has to go somewhere, ya know.
No, it was kicking around for awhile and running. It wasn't dead for quite a while. Bleeding out doesn't give instant death, though sometimes it kills the animal quickly. I still say it isn't a humane way of killing animals, because much pain is involved compared to other methods.
On June 29 2011 04:20 Destro wrote: I like how we hold ourselves on such a high pedestal. We keep animals locked up their entire life, fed garbage food and have little space to wander in their own feces. They live this way their entire life and treated like any other resource. BUT DEAR GOD IF THEY DIE IN 2 SECONDS INSTEAD OF 1... UN-HUMANE!
I must have missed the statements of people pro animal wellfare in this thread in which they state that they were fine with animals being locked up their whole life wandering in their own feces.
I voted for "Animal Welfare" in the obviously biased poll but I feel like I need to clarify my opinion: I believe that animal welfare IS more important than any religion's laws. But after reading up on it a bit, I think Halal and Kosher animal slaughtering are quite humane and shouldn't be banned.
in turkey most of the religous guys consider stunning is ok before killing . i dont think its a problem about islam but it is about traditions of muslims in dutchland.
On June 29 2011 04:16 Deadlyhazard wrote: Yeah I saw this halal thing in the Zimmern show the other day. It took the animal about 10 minutes to die from bleeding out of the throat. And it was a camel ( I thought camels were restricted against this tradition....). It most certainly is NOT a humane way of killing animals, especially now that modern civilization has ways to kill them instantly. This is not an instant kill.
The animal has already been dead. Its just bleeding out. The blood has to go somewhere, ya know.
No, it was kicking around for awhile and running. It wasn't dead for quite a while. Bleeding out doesn't give instant death, though sometimes it kills the animal quickly. I still say it isn't a humane way of killing animals, because much pain is involved compared to other methods.
Running?? After having its jugular and carotid arteries cut? Are you sure?...I can't find the video.
On June 29 2011 04:25 Gak2 wrote: I voted for "Animal Welfare" in the obviously biased poll but I feel like I need to clarify my opinion: I believe that animal welfare IS more important than any religion's laws. But after reading up on it a bit, I think Halal and Kosher animal slaughtering are quite humane and shouldn't be banned.
Thank goodness for rational people like you. You have brightened up my day.
On June 29 2011 03:18 Destro wrote: people should be able to eat and prepare their food however they want, as long as its not in a way that damages the eco system. i see nothing wrong with this.
people put animals on a higher regard then other humans, yet animals lack all the qualities that define us and have much different nervous systems. the way a cow or a pig feels pain is MUCH different from human pain. I bothers me to no end how people disregard this. Its the same reason no one gives a shit about stepping on bugs....
I give a shit about stepping on bugs. If there is an ant on the road, I'm not going to purposely step on it. I don't see why anyone would do it, as it would cause needless harm to the ant, not to mention that if the ant were 100 times as big as you, you wouldn't want it to step on you either.
And of course, that claim that animals feel pain differently is pretty meaningless because I've never heard of it, instead I've only heard the opposite so a source would be nice.
Live and let live. Don't do to others what you don't want to have done to yourself.
I wouldn't want someone to eat me either, I guess I should stop eating meat. You have me convinced.
On topic.
The issue in this case is that we don't exactly know if it's more humane or less painful to use the stun-based method, if it can be proven that one method is more painful for the animal, we can get rid of that method and at that point we can start talking about the religious implications and whether they even matter, but at this point with nothing convincing me that the kosher method is actually more painful, I can't say I support the idea of banning it.
On June 29 2011 04:16 Deadlyhazard wrote: Yeah I saw this halal thing in the Zimmern show the other day. It took the animal about 10 minutes to die from bleeding out of the throat. And it was a camel ( I thought camels were restricted against this tradition....). It most certainly is NOT a humane way of killing animals, especially now that modern civilization has ways to kill them instantly. This is not an instant kill.
The animal has already been dead. Its just bleeding out. The blood has to go somewhere, ya know.
No, it was kicking around for awhile and running. It wasn't dead for quite a while. Bleeding out doesn't give instant death, though sometimes it kills the animal quickly. I still say it isn't a humane way of killing animals, because much pain is involved compared to other methods.
Running?? After having its jugular and carotid arteries cut? Are you sure?...I can't find the video.
I saw it on the travel channel. And yes it was struggling after it had its throat cut for quite awhile. Just because all of that is cut doesn't mean it can't live for awhile afterwards and still have motor function. It just died...slowly because it was cut bad. And I'm sure mistakes are made like this all the time. It was also cut with a very very tiny dagger...
On June 29 2011 03:18 Destro wrote: people should be able to eat and prepare their food however they want, as long as its not in a way that damages the eco system. i see nothing wrong with this.
people put animals on a higher regard then other humans, yet animals lack all the qualities that define us and have much different nervous systems. the way a cow or a pig feels pain is MUCH different from human pain. I bothers me to no end how people disregard this. Its the same reason no one gives a shit about stepping on bugs....
I give a shit about stepping on bugs. If there is an ant on the road, I'm not going to purposely step on it. I don't see why anyone would do it, as it would cause needless harm to the ant, not to mention that if the ant were 100 times as big as you, you wouldn't want it to step on you either.
And of course, that claim that animals feel pain differently is pretty meaningless because I've never heard of it, instead I've only heard the opposite so a source would be nice.
Live and let live. Don't do to others what you don't want to have done to yourself.
I wouldn't want someone to eat me either, I guess I should stop eating meat. You have me convinced.
I'm talking about needless harm. Read before you comment on my views.
1st world problems. sigh.
You have me convinced now! Because there are bigger problems in the world obviously means we cannot deal with lesser problems!
No not really he was just saying that he doesn't understand why religions receive exemptions and government funding. That's not anti-religion it's anti special treatment for religion which is a whole separate off-topic argument. Throwing around the anti-Semite card reflexively makes you sound very over-reactive, and generally isn't very helpful... just a thought.
WTF, how is this even a poll this should be a 100% uncontested
I voted for "Animal Welfare" in the obviously biased poll but I feel like I need to clarify my opinion
The poll is biased and terrible, and designed in such a way to reprimand people for choosing to support Islam/Judaism by putting them as opposed to animal welfare. That removes the entire point of a debate/discussion and encourages posts like LOLWTF JOOZ HATE ANIMALS.
I'd encourage anyone to look up the OU response to PETA, or any discussions of Hallal slaughter vs shock slaughter. You will find valid scientific sources on both sides of the debate as to whether straight halachic (I'm talking kosher just because I know more about it) slaughter is more/less painful. The conclusion of the poll is not a given. I actually have a lot of problems with modern american jewry (am somewhat a member), but frequently defend them in arguments like this where people are jumping on a potentially misinformed bandwagon.
I don't think banning schitah and Halal slaughtering is in any way sensible or helpful. If they want to legislate with animal rights in mind they should look at the meat supply system as a whole and address problems with force-fed corn-grain rations necessitating heavy dosages of antibiotics to counter the problems created by the food regimen we give our cattle. The slaughter of the animal happens the first time they are fed things that cattle were not ever designed to eat. After 6-12 months of feeding like that the cows would actually die from the rations designed to fatten them up.
FTR, I'm not even necessarily opposed to all this. I just think its absurd how people are focusing on the method of slaughter pretending that they care wildly about the welfare of their feedstock when the slaughtering method in question is not neccessarily painful. Stomach ulcers... definitely painful.
On June 29 2011 03:18 Destro wrote: people should be able to eat and prepare their food however they want, as long as its not in a way that damages the eco system. i see nothing wrong with this.
people put animals on a higher regard then other humans, yet animals lack all the qualities that define us and have much different nervous systems. the way a cow or a pig feels pain is MUCH different from human pain. I bothers me to no end how people disregard this. Its the same reason no one gives a shit about stepping on bugs....
I give a shit about stepping on bugs. If there is an ant on the road, I'm not going to purposely step on it. I don't see why anyone would do it, as it would cause needless harm to the ant, not to mention that if the ant were 100 times as big as you, you wouldn't want it to step on you either.
And of course, that claim that animals feel pain differently is pretty meaningless because I've never heard of it, instead I've only heard the opposite so a source would be nice.
Live and let live. Don't do to others what you don't want to have done to yourself.
I wouldn't want someone to eat me either, I guess I should stop eating meat. You have me convinced.
I'm talking about needless harm. Read before you comment on my views.
You have me convinced now! Because there are bigger problems in the world obviously means we cannot deal with lesser problems!
Eating an animal in the modern day seems pretty needless to me, particularly with all the supplemental protein available now adays. I'm actually not a vegetarian, and I'm not a vegetarian because this argument fails to convince me, the, "I would want it done to me" was the part of your post I was most responding to, of course you wouldn't want to be eaten either, why bring it up in reference to stepping on the ant. Would you rather be eaten than stepped on? I prefer neither.
On June 29 2011 03:18 Destro wrote: people should be able to eat and prepare their food however they want, as long as its not in a way that damages the eco system. i see nothing wrong with this.
people put animals on a higher regard then other humans, yet animals lack all the qualities that define us and have much different nervous systems. the way a cow or a pig feels pain is MUCH different from human pain. I bothers me to no end how people disregard this. Its the same reason no one gives a shit about stepping on bugs....
I give a shit about stepping on bugs. If there is an ant on the road, I'm not going to purposely step on it. I don't see why anyone would do it, as it would cause needless harm to the ant, not to mention that if the ant were 100 times as big as you, you wouldn't want it to step on you either.
And of course, that claim that animals feel pain differently is pretty meaningless because I've never heard of it, instead I've only heard the opposite so a source would be nice.
Live and let live. Don't do to others what you don't want to have done to yourself.
I wouldn't want someone to eat me either, I guess I should stop eating meat. You have me convinced.
I'm talking about needless harm. Read before you comment on my views.
1st world problems. sigh.
You have me convinced now! Because there are bigger problems in the world obviously means we cannot deal with lesser problems!
Eating an animal in the modern day seems pretty needless to me, particularly with all the supplemental protein available now adays. I'm actually not a vegetarian, and I'm not a vegetarian because this argument fails to convince me, the, "I would want it done to me" was the part of your post I was most responding to, of course you wouldn't want to be eaten either, why bring it up in reference to stepping on the ant. Would you rather be eaten than stepped on? I prefer neither.
Eating an animal serves a scientifically observable purpose whereas stepping on an animal does not.
Torturing an animal before it dies because a man in the sky said so has no scientific basis for being useful.
On June 29 2011 03:18 Destro wrote: people should be able to eat and prepare their food however they want, as long as its not in a way that damages the eco system. i see nothing wrong with this.
people put animals on a higher regard then other humans, yet animals lack all the qualities that define us and have much different nervous systems. the way a cow or a pig feels pain is MUCH different from human pain. I bothers me to no end how people disregard this. Its the same reason no one gives a shit about stepping on bugs....
I give a shit about stepping on bugs. If there is an ant on the road, I'm not going to purposely step on it. I don't see why anyone would do it, as it would cause needless harm to the ant, not to mention that if the ant were 100 times as big as you, you wouldn't want it to step on you either.
And of course, that claim that animals feel pain differently is pretty meaningless because I've never heard of it, instead I've only heard the opposite so a source would be nice.
Live and let live. Don't do to others what you don't want to have done to yourself.
I wouldn't want someone to eat me either, I guess I should stop eating meat. You have me convinced.
I'm talking about needless harm. Read before you comment on my views.
1st world problems. sigh.
You have me convinced now! Because there are bigger problems in the world obviously means we cannot deal with lesser problems!
Eating an animal in the modern day seems pretty needless to me, particularly with all the supplemental protein available now adays. I'm actually not a vegetarian, and I'm not a vegetarian because this argument fails to convince me, the, "I would want it done to me" was the part of your post I was most responding to, of course you wouldn't want to be eaten either, why bring it up in reference to stepping on the ant. Would you rather be eaten than stepped on? I prefer neither.
Eating an animal serves a purpose whereas stepping on an animal does not.
I wouldn't want to be eaten or stepped on though, and like I said, if we're bringing up modern technology and alternatives, there are plenty of supplements to take the place of eating an animal in just about every first world country.
On June 29 2011 03:18 Destro wrote: people should be able to eat and prepare their food however they want, as long as its not in a way that damages the eco system. i see nothing wrong with this.
people put animals on a higher regard then other humans, yet animals lack all the qualities that define us and have much different nervous systems. the way a cow or a pig feels pain is MUCH different from human pain. I bothers me to no end how people disregard this. Its the same reason no one gives a shit about stepping on bugs....
I give a shit about stepping on bugs. If there is an ant on the road, I'm not going to purposely step on it. I don't see why anyone would do it, as it would cause needless harm to the ant, not to mention that if the ant were 100 times as big as you, you wouldn't want it to step on you either.
And of course, that claim that animals feel pain differently is pretty meaningless because I've never heard of it, instead I've only heard the opposite so a source would be nice.
Live and let live. Don't do to others what you don't want to have done to yourself.
I wouldn't want someone to eat me either, I guess I should stop eating meat. You have me convinced.
I'm talking about needless harm. Read before you comment on my views.
1st world problems. sigh.
You have me convinced now! Because there are bigger problems in the world obviously means we cannot deal with lesser problems!
Eating an animal in the modern day seems pretty needless to me, particularly with all the supplemental protein available now adays. I'm actually not a vegetarian, and I'm not a vegetarian because this argument fails to convince me, the, "I would want it done to me" was the part of your post I was most responding to, of course you wouldn't want to be eaten either, why bring it up in reference to stepping on the ant. Would you rather be eaten than stepped on? I prefer neither.
Eating an animal serves a purpose whereas stepping on an animal does not.
I wouldn't want to be eaten or stepped on though, and like I said, if we're bringing up modern technology and alternatives, there are plenty of supplements to take the place of eating an animal in just about every first world country.
And as I have already said I also believe that humans are superior to animals and therefore I do not object to the use of animals as food.
I do however believe that the 'no torture' laws should extend to every living being, animals have feelings and that more intelligent animals have more complex emotions with the human being the most complex animal.
That is why I am also in favor of not having chimpanzees as pets because they simply are too intelligent. We don't keep mentally handicapped people as pets either.
The poll is just wrong. It's not like governments are slaughtering billions of chickens/cow's/sheep's in a ''humane'' way. So i don't understand why you would put ''animal welfare'' in there.
There is a difference in letting an animal live a natural life and slaughter it with a razor quick and discreetly.
Or raise them in small cages and feed them all kinds of hormones/drugs/fat,muscle enhancers and slaughter them with modern day drugs.
On June 29 2011 03:18 Destro wrote: people should be able to eat and prepare their food however they want, as long as its not in a way that damages the eco system. i see nothing wrong with this.
people put animals on a higher regard then other humans, yet animals lack all the qualities that define us and have much different nervous systems. the way a cow or a pig feels pain is MUCH different from human pain. I bothers me to no end how people disregard this. Its the same reason no one gives a shit about stepping on bugs....
I give a shit about stepping on bugs. If there is an ant on the road, I'm not going to purposely step on it. I don't see why anyone would do it, as it would cause needless harm to the ant, not to mention that if the ant were 100 times as big as you, you wouldn't want it to step on you either.
And of course, that claim that animals feel pain differently is pretty meaningless because I've never heard of it, instead I've only heard the opposite so a source would be nice.
Live and let live. Don't do to others what you don't want to have done to yourself.
I wouldn't want someone to eat me either, I guess I should stop eating meat. You have me convinced.
I'm talking about needless harm. Read before you comment on my views.
1st world problems. sigh.
You have me convinced now! Because there are bigger problems in the world obviously means we cannot deal with lesser problems!
Eating an animal in the modern day seems pretty needless to me, particularly with all the supplemental protein available now adays. I'm actually not a vegetarian, and I'm not a vegetarian because this argument fails to convince me, the, "I would want it done to me" was the part of your post I was most responding to, of course you wouldn't want to be eaten either, why bring it up in reference to stepping on the ant. Would you rather be eaten than stepped on? I prefer neither.
Eating an animal serves a purpose whereas stepping on an animal does not.
I wouldn't want to be eaten or stepped on though, and like I said, if we're bringing up modern technology and alternatives, there are plenty of supplements to take the place of eating an animal in just about every first world country.
And as I have already said I also believe that humans are superior to animals and therefore I do not object to the use of animals as food.
I do however believe that the 'no torture' laws should extend to every living being, animals have feelings and that more intelligent animals have more complex emotions with the human being the most complex animal.
Well, that's fair but that still sort of kills the earlier, "I wouldn't want to be stepped on" comment you made, which was what I was referring to specifically.
Also in responding to me you said...
On June 29 2011 04:46 Thorakh wrote: Torturing an animal before it dies because a man in the sky said so has no scientific basis for being useful.
But I don't see how this is relevant, when there isn't much reason to believe that they're actually torturing the animal. Someone posted reference to research suggesting that's it's no more painful, but I haven't seen much said to the contrary other than speculation.
It would seem you're just an aggressive atheist looking for an argument and in this regard, sure if it was proven that it were more painful and inhumane, I would likely agree with you, but until then there's no point arguing in that regard.
On June 29 2011 03:18 Destro wrote: people should be able to eat and prepare their food however they want, as long as its not in a way that damages the eco system. i see nothing wrong with this.
people put animals on a higher regard then other humans, yet animals lack all the qualities that define us and have much different nervous systems. the way a cow or a pig feels pain is MUCH different from human pain. I bothers me to no end how people disregard this. Its the same reason no one gives a shit about stepping on bugs....
I give a shit about stepping on bugs. If there is an ant on the road, I'm not going to purposely step on it. I don't see why anyone would do it, as it would cause needless harm to the ant, not to mention that if the ant were 100 times as big as you, you wouldn't want it to step on you either.
And of course, that claim that animals feel pain differently is pretty meaningless because I've never heard of it, instead I've only heard the opposite so a source would be nice.
Live and let live. Don't do to others what you don't want to have done to yourself.
I wouldn't want someone to eat me either, I guess I should stop eating meat. You have me convinced.
I'm talking about needless harm. Read before you comment on my views.
1st world problems. sigh.
You have me convinced now! Because there are bigger problems in the world obviously means we cannot deal with lesser problems!
Eating an animal in the modern day seems pretty needless to me, particularly with all the supplemental protein available now adays. I'm actually not a vegetarian, and I'm not a vegetarian because this argument fails to convince me, the, "I would want it done to me" was the part of your post I was most responding to, of course you wouldn't want to be eaten either, why bring it up in reference to stepping on the ant. Would you rather be eaten than stepped on? I prefer neither.
Eating an animal serves a purpose whereas stepping on an animal does not.
I wouldn't want to be eaten or stepped on though, and like I said, if we're bringing up modern technology and alternatives, there are plenty of supplements to take the place of eating an animal in just about every first world country.
And as I have already said I also believe that humans are superior to animals and therefore I do not object to the use of animals as food.
I do however believe that the 'no torture' laws should extend to every living being, animals have feelings and that more intelligent animals have more complex emotions with the human being the most complex animal.
Well, that's fair but that still sort of kills the earlier, "I wouldn't want to be stepped on" comment you made, which was what I was referring to specifically.
And that is where my 'cause no purposeless harm' (obviously the purpose of deriving pleasure from violence excluded) comes in.
On June 29 2011 04:46 Thorakh wrote: Torturing an animal before it dies because a man in the sky said so has no scientific basis for being useful.
But I don't see how this is relevant, when there is much reason to believe that we're actually torturing the animal. Someone posted reference to research suggesting that's it's no more painful, but I haven't seen much said to the contrary other than speculation.
It would seem you're just an aggressive atheist looking for an argument and in this regard, sure if it was proven that it were more painful and inhumane, I would likely agree with you, but until then there's no point arguing in that regard.
I already took notice of that information, but that does not change the idea behind the debate, that making exceptions to laws because of religious views is wrong and that's what I'm arguing for.
And as I've already said before, I have no problems with these specific religious slaughters if there is no cruelty involved.
No religious exceptions. The only question is if animals can be humanely killed while conscious -- if they can, then the Dutch law is unreasonably restrictive.
For some reason the idea of stepping on something to kill it has plagued this thread now. We were talking about cutting an animals throat with a very sharp knife.
Anyways on topic. I Myself am a farmboy I grew up on a farm we slaughtered chickens every fall and shot deer and butchered cattle. Many people believe these kinds of things are wrong. And I can't personally believe that they would go as far as trying to force us to stop by complaining to the government. It is completely preposterous that people think by complaining to the government that they will get what they want and stop age old traditions and methods of surviving (living in the world).
What really grinds my gears (I hate to use that term) is that people say "Why don't you just go to the super market and buy your meat?" Well the nearest super market from home is about 30 miles away and with gas prices the way they are your talking about a 50$ trip every time I want to have a steak for supper. Instead I'll walk out to the freezer throw my T-bone in the microwave and defrost it then fry it in a pan.
I myself have killed many animals (cows, chickens, even wild ones such as grouse, whitetail deer and many other native species to the great state of Minnesota) using methods such as slicing their throat, shooting them in the head, beheading. I can tell you that the pain they feel is little to none. Just because they are bleeding all over the place people tend to think OMG IT MUST HURT. No. They either passed out or fainted almost instantly because of the shock or loss of blood.
Anyways enough of my rant I don't think anyone has the right the tell someone how to live or who to worship (I'm an atheist and I don't go preaching to people to be like me because that would mean I'm being just as bad as my opposites). I especially dislike the fact that people run to the government to complain rather then dealing with something by themselves.
On June 29 2011 03:58 Zorgaz wrote: Religion is only acceptable if it doesn't interfere with the law or humane ethics.
Cutting the animals throat isn't humane, of course the animal feels the pain.
It's just a bunch of bull*#&!
you mean, your human ethics.
If animal cruelty doesn't disturb you, then atleast I think that's kinda disturbing.
Meat looks same on the plate either way, if certain people think that killing the animal in a certain way makes them happy, as long as it doesn't take away from the taste, I don't mind it.
Halal death is not painful....Kosher death is not painful...this is religious... As a Muslim this isn't the first time I've seen the Dutch government try to do something like this Here's a video about what Halal food/Kosher basically does to the animal.
I seem to remember a certain group in power of a certain nation in the 1930s-1940s banning kosher butchering. I don't think government should legislate for or against religions, it goes against free will.
On June 29 2011 03:58 Zorgaz wrote: Religion is only acceptable if it doesn't interfere with the law or humane ethics.
Cutting the animals throat isn't humane, of course the animal feels the pain.
It's just a bunch of bull*#&!
you mean, your human ethics.
If animal cruelty doesn't disturb you, then atleast I think that's kinda disturbing.
sorry, cutting the throat of an animal doesnt disturb me. people's ignorance to how the world works does however. Go to africa, tell a village that has 3 goats to survive off of for 2 months that they are disturbing for cutting the throat of a goat for food.
Until we stop treating other humans worse than we treat our food, i will never believe that this kind of arrogant 1st world issue is worth the discussion.
I wouldn't be surprised that people would rather end animal suffering before we end human suffering. If thats what is "humane" i want nothing to do with the word.
On June 29 2011 03:58 Zorgaz wrote: Religion is only acceptable if it doesn't interfere with the law or humane ethics.
Cutting the animals throat isn't humane, of course the animal feels the pain.
It's just a bunch of bull*#&!
you mean, your human ethics.
If animal cruelty doesn't disturb you, then atleast I think that's kinda disturbing.
sorry, cutting the throat of an animal doesnt disturb me. people's ignorance to how the world works does however. Go to africa, tell a village that has 3 goats to survive off of for 2 months that they are disturbing for cutting the throat of a goat for food.
Until we stop treating other humans worse than we treat our food, i will never believe that this kind of arrogant 1st world issue is worth the discussion.
I wouldn't be surprised that people would rather end animal suffering before we end human suffering. If thats what is "humane" i want nothing to do with the word.
Are you claiming that the people who practice this dogma are doing it because they are on the verge or starvation?
If not I don't understand how your post has any merit.
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.
There's a difference between being forced to do something and being forbidden. Quite frankly there is not enough emphasis on integration. If any community moves to a different country to speak their own language and congregate together exclusively that is obviously terrible and unfortunately halal practices encourages this lack of integration.
This is due to the establishment of halal businesses within this integrated community, further strengthening the link within their own community and desperately weakening the link to the actual country they are in.
On June 29 2011 05:30 isM wrote: I seem to remember a certain group in power of a certain nation in the 1930s-1940s banning kosher butchering. I don't think government should legislate for or against religions, it goes against free will.
To limit the rights of humans and extending those of beasts......What has humanity become?
On June 29 2011 05:25 LaGTTJack wrote: Halal death is not painful....Kosher death is not painful...this is religious... As a Muslim this isn't the first time I've seen the Dutch government try to do something like this Here's a video about what Halal food/Kosher basically does to the animal. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBsbfqCXmlw
I would avoid citing Zakir Naiq as your primary source, the guy is a religious cleric, so while what he may be saying in this case may be accurate, he's been known to say some... questionable stuff. As a religious source, it's whatever...
As a scientific source, I would cite the scientific studies as referenced earlier.
Why, does people still talk about "torturing" animals for religious believes? Halal/Kosher butchering methods are less painful then common methods, dont believe me? Look up Halal in wikipedia and click on reference 18 or look at my response on the top of page 10.
Stop the baseless hating and use some common unbiased research abilities.
On June 29 2011 05:25 LaGTTJack wrote: Halal death is not painful....Kosher death is not painful...this is religious... As a Muslim this isn't the first time I've seen the Dutch government try to do something like this Here's a video about what Halal food/Kosher basically does to the animal. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBsbfqCXmlw
Well that guy wouldn't have any reason at all to say what he says so he must be legit.
Come on man, be reasonable. You can't trust religious people or religious scientists on this subject because they will always be biased towards protecting their traditions. He is religious and he's standing infront of a religious crowd, all he needs to say is what they want to hear and they will eat it up like...well like halal meat i suppose.
Independent scientists have shown that the animal does suffer and for that reason it has to be sedated. Animal wellfare takes precedence over religion and rightly so.
Sedating or stunning the animal before slaughter is a perfect compromise. Try not always wanting to have everything your way.
Religious freedom should be very limited. Owning a religious book, having a religious institution of choice within reasonable distance and being allowed to pray to whatever god you favour. It is not the ultimate loophole to bypass all freedoms.
Irony is this discussion is about how to kill the animal least painfully -_-. You are still killing the animal, what does it matter to you wheter it dies knocked out, or dies with its throat cut. It is the same meat from the same corpse.
Hell hunting season people just straight up shoot animals with guns with no care in the world. Why not go take up the fight against hunting too.
I fail to see the big issue here, apart from people jumping on the "omg look what these religious ppl are doing, see how bad religion is" bandwagon.
Is this kind of slaughtering hurting your life in any way? Probably not, why do you care then, and why do you want to limit it, thus hurting the life of people who follow that belief.
Its not a hard concept people, if its not hurting your life, let them live their life was they please.
Also, sorry, that poor cow that is going to be killed anyway experiencing pain is not hurting your life. Stop trying to show how superior person you are by caring about the lives of "those innocent creatures", its pathetic.
All around the world there are thousands of animals raised with 1 single purpose in life: to die and wind up on a plate. How they die, is really a minor issue at this point.
On June 29 2011 03:58 Zorgaz wrote: Religion is only acceptable if it doesn't interfere with the law or humane ethics.
Cutting the animals throat isn't humane, of course the animal feels the pain.
It's just a bunch of bull*#&!
you mean, your human ethics.
If animal cruelty doesn't disturb you, then atleast I think that's kinda disturbing.
sorry, cutting the throat of an animal doesnt disturb me. people's ignorance to how the world works does however. Go to africa, tell a village that has 3 goats to survive off of for 2 months that they are disturbing for cutting the throat of a goat for food.
Until we stop treating other humans worse than we treat our food, i will never believe that this kind of arrogant 1st world issue is worth the discussion.
I wouldn't be surprised that people would rather end animal suffering before we end human suffering. If thats what is "humane" i want nothing to do with the word.
On June 29 2011 03:58 Zorgaz wrote: Religion is only acceptable if it doesn't interfere with the law or humane ethics.
Cutting the animals throat isn't humane, of course the animal feels the pain.
It's just a bunch of bull*#&!
you mean, your human ethics.
If animal cruelty doesn't disturb you, then atleast I think that's kinda disturbing.
sorry, cutting the throat of an animal doesnt disturb me. people's ignorance to how the world works does however. Go to africa, tell a village that has 3 goats to survive off of for 2 months that they are disturbing for cutting the throat of a goat for food.
Until we stop treating other humans worse than we treat our food, i will never believe that this kind of arrogant 1st world issue is worth the discussion.
I wouldn't be surprised that people would rather end animal suffering before we end human suffering. If thats what is "humane" i want nothing to do with the word.
Are you claiming that the people who practice this dogma are doing it because they are on the verge or starvation?
If not I don't understand how your post has any merit.
Humane is a derivative of Humanity, the 1st world is not the representative of humanity, infact, statistically, its a minority. Thus, what is practised in the rest of the world is more "humane" then what you people are claiming. Now before you call semantics, lets keep in mind that these are dutch laws, so the dutch folk here have a bit more weight in the conversation imo.
Also consider the fact that to a muslim, giving an animal a more humane/proper death, is to give it a halal death. These dutch lawmakers are essentially trying to say "my way or the highway" and to a greater extent, so are the posters in this thread.
On June 29 2011 05:25 LaGTTJack wrote: Halal death is not painful....Kosher death is not painful...this is religious... As a Muslim this isn't the first time I've seen the Dutch government try to do something like this Here's a video about what Halal food/Kosher basically does to the animal. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBsbfqCXmlw
Well that guy wouldn't have any reason at all to say what he says so he must be legit.
Come on man, be reasonable. You can't trust religious people or religious scientists on this subject because they will always be biased towards protecting their traditions. He is religious and he's standing infront of a religious crowd, all he needs to say is what they want to hear and they will eat it up like...well like halal meat i suppose.
Independent scientists have shown that the animal does suffer and for that reason it has to be sedated. Animal wellfare takes precedence over religion and rightly so.
Sedating or stunning the animal before slaughter is a perfect compromise. Try not always wanting to have everything your way.
Religious freedom should be very limited. Owning a religious book, having a religious institution of choice within reasonable distance and being allowed to pray to whatever god you favour. It is not the ultimate loophole to bypass all freedoms.
What you recommend is not exactly a compromise, that's just getting it your way. Without evidence to suggest that it is more painful and inhumane, you can't just suggest an arbitrary compromise.
Other sources were cited in this regard, what studies have Independent scientists done that show the animals suffer, if you could source some of these studies you're referring to, that would be helpful.
On June 29 2011 05:25 LaGTTJack wrote: Halal death is not painful....Kosher death is not painful...this is religious... As a Muslim this isn't the first time I've seen the Dutch government try to do something like this Here's a video about what Halal food/Kosher basically does to the animal. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBsbfqCXmlw
Well that guy wouldn't have any reason at all to say what he says so he must be legit.
Come on man, be reasonable. You can't trust religious people or religious scientists on this subject because they will always be biased towards protecting their traditions. He is religious and he's standing infront of a religious crowd, all he needs to say is what they want to hear and they will eat it up like...well like halal meat i suppose.
Independent scientists have shown that the animal does suffer and for that reason it has to be sedated. Animal wellfare takes precedence over religion and rightly so.
Sedating or stunning the animal before slaughter is a perfect compromise. Try not always wanting to have everything your way.
Religious freedom should be very limited. Owning a religious book, having a religious institution of choice within reasonable distance and being allowed to pray to whatever god you favour. It is not the ultimate loophole to bypass all freedoms.
Let's put this into perspective. Religious Rights and Rights of Humans to religion Animal Rights are Rights of Animals
Humans>Animals
There for Rights of Humans take priority over those of Beasts.
If you are gonna draw equal signs between Humans and Beasts I will lose respect for you as another member of humanity
On June 29 2011 03:58 Zorgaz wrote: Religion is only acceptable if it doesn't interfere with the law or humane ethics.
Cutting the animals throat isn't humane, of course the animal feels the pain.
It's just a bunch of bull*#&!
you mean, your human ethics.
If animal cruelty doesn't disturb you, then atleast I think that's kinda disturbing.
sorry, cutting the throat of an animal doesnt disturb me. people's ignorance to how the world works does however. Go to africa, tell a village that has 3 goats to survive off of for 2 months that they are disturbing for cutting the throat of a goat for food.
Villagers cutting the throats of goats to provide food for the village do not disturb me either, because it is not pointless harmcausing. Why won't you understand this? There is a difference between killing an animal, and killing an animal in a cruel way. Even if slithing a goats throat is cruel to the goat, those villagers may not have any other less cruel way to kill the goat so it is still acceptable.
Until we stop treating other humans worse than we treat our food, i will never believe that this kind of arrogant 1st world issue is worth the discussion.
And again, just because there are worse problems does not mean lesser problems cannot be addressed. It's like saying "Wow, I can't find my keys, I'd better not search or find a solution because people in Africa are starving and that needs to be solved first.".
On June 29 2011 03:58 Zorgaz wrote: Religion is only acceptable if it doesn't interfere with the law or humane ethics.
Cutting the animals throat isn't humane, of course the animal feels the pain.
It's just a bunch of bull*#&!
you mean, your human ethics.
If animal cruelty doesn't disturb you, then atleast I think that's kinda disturbing.
sorry, cutting the throat of an animal doesnt disturb me. people's ignorance to how the world works does however. Go to africa, tell a village that has 3 goats to survive off of for 2 months that they are disturbing for cutting the throat of a goat for food.
Until we stop treating other humans worse than we treat our food, i will never believe that this kind of arrogant 1st world issue is worth the discussion.
I wouldn't be surprised that people would rather end animal suffering before we end human suffering. If thats what is "humane" i want nothing to do with the word.
Are you claiming that the people who practice this dogma are doing it because they are on the verge or starvation?
If not I don't understand how your post has any merit.
Humane is a derivative of Humanity, the 1st world is not the representative of humanity, infact, statistically, its a minority. Thus, what is practised in the rest of the world is more "humane" then what you people are claiming. Now before you call semantics, lets keep in mind that these are dutch laws, so the dutch folk here have a bit more weight in the conversation imo.
Also consider the fact that to a muslim, giving an animal a more humane/proper death, is to give it a halal death. These dutch lawmakers are essentially trying to say "my way or the highway" and to a greater extent, so are the posters in this thread.
Why wouldn't the dutch have the right then to legislate in their own country based on your argument that is exactly what you'd be advocating, you allude to this fact, but that doesn't make your argument any less flawed. And last time I checked the third world was pretty much a shithole, not as bad a shithole as the media would have you believe, but still a shithole.
Also people who have brought the "christians would be outraged if X were banned" argument are probably not aware of the changes of position the church constantly underwent when it expanded in order to placate the pagans in the Germanic countries, Christianity is incredibly different to what it was even 200 years ago, not exactly an expert on how Islam has changed though, would be interesting.
On June 29 2011 03:58 Zorgaz wrote: Religion is only acceptable if it doesn't interfere with the law or humane ethics.
Cutting the animals throat isn't humane, of course the animal feels the pain.
It's just a bunch of bull*#&!
you mean, your human ethics.
If animal cruelty doesn't disturb you, then atleast I think that's kinda disturbing.
sorry, cutting the throat of an animal doesnt disturb me. people's ignorance to how the world works does however. Go to africa, tell a village that has 3 goats to survive off of for 2 months that they are disturbing for cutting the throat of a goat for food.
Until we stop treating other humans worse than we treat our food, i will never believe that this kind of arrogant 1st world issue is worth the discussion.
I wouldn't be surprised that people would rather end animal suffering before we end human suffering. If thats what is "humane" i want nothing to do with the word.
Are you claiming that the people who practice this dogma are doing it because they are on the verge or starvation?
If not I don't understand how your post has any merit.
Humane is a derivative of Humanity, the 1st world is not the representative of humanity, infact, statistically, its a minority. Thus, what is practised in the rest of the world is more "humane" then what you people are claiming. Now before you call semantics, lets keep in mind that these are dutch laws, so the dutch folk here have a bit more weight in the conversation imo.
Also consider the fact that to a muslim, giving an animal a more humane/proper death, is to give it a halal death. These dutch lawmakers are essentially trying to say "my way or the highway" and to a greater extent, so are the posters in this thread.
Why wouldn't the dutch have the right then to legislate in their own country based on your argument that is exactly what you'd be advocating, you allude to this fact, but that doesn't make your argument any less flawed. And last time I checked the third world was pretty much a shithole, not as bad a shithole as the media would have you believe, but still a shithole.
Also people who have brought the "christians would be outraged if X were banned" argument are probably not aware of the changes of position the church constantly underwent when it expanded in order to placate the pagans in the Germanic countries, Christianity is incredibly different to what it was even 200 years ago, not exactly an expert on how Islam has changed though, would be interesting.
I do know a lot about the Christian Reformations during the early to late middle ages, but explain to me what the price of rice in china has to do with this conversation?
We only need to look at Indonesia who just got slapped with an export ban by Australia after we found out their interpretation of halal was off the docks in a shipping container with a machete. But I guess some people will defend anything even though what they were doing wasnt humane or hygenic.
On June 29 2011 05:54 MilesTeg wrote: Another populist law to get the islamophobic voter. You guys seriously don't have anything better to do?
It's the same in France, they're legislating on everything to please the intolerant majority, and I find the whole debate disgusting.
Besides is the poll is ridiculously biased, and should be removed from the OP.
(this coming from an atheist who doesn't even want to kill a bug...)
The French are so blatantly racist towards the Islamic Religion. In Quebec there was a vote against the hijab, even though maybe 60? people total wear religious garb over their head in Quebec. Its like, really? you're going to cost the governemnt thousands of dollars because you're so racist you cannot allow 60 people to practice their religion??
On June 29 2011 05:54 MilesTeg wrote: Another populist law to get the islamophobic voter. You guys seriously don't have anything better to do?
It's the same in France, they're legislating on everything to please the intolerant majority, and I find the whole debate disgusting.
Besides is the poll is ridiculously biased, and should be removed from the OP.
(this coming from an atheist who doesn't even want to kill a bug...)
The French are so blatantly racist towards the Islamic Religion. In Quebec there was a vote against the hijab, even though maybe 60? people total wear religious garb over their head in Quebec. Its like, really? you're going to cost the governemnt thousands of dollars because you're so racist you cannot allow 60 people to practice their religion??
The kind of meat I eat is fish, other than that, plants and grains. I've been a live for some time now, and I think people in general could be find going vegetarian. If you want to get more specific, last time I saw a video on slaughter houses (not kosher kind), but animals being put on conveyer belts and going through a series of machines that just lopped off their body parts while totally conscious. Kosher is actually "tries" to make it as painless and "sinless" as possible; they care about their actions and the wellbeing of the animal. So, I guess if there were starving people, then why let them starve, in my thought and what I've learned, but if you can live without meat, yea, happier animals? Kind of like that- is my thoughts.
On June 29 2011 03:58 Zorgaz wrote: Religion is only acceptable if it doesn't interfere with the law or humane ethics.
Cutting the animals throat isn't humane, of course the animal feels the pain.
It's just a bunch of bull*#&!
you mean, your human ethics.
If animal cruelty doesn't disturb you, then atleast I think that's kinda disturbing.
sorry, cutting the throat of an animal doesnt disturb me. people's ignorance to how the world works does however. Go to africa, tell a village that has 3 goats to survive off of for 2 months that they are disturbing for cutting the throat of a goat for food.
Until we stop treating other humans worse than we treat our food, i will never believe that this kind of arrogant 1st world issue is worth the discussion.
I wouldn't be surprised that people would rather end animal suffering before we end human suffering. If thats what is "humane" i want nothing to do with the word.
Nice strawman. Nobody would argue that a starving African killing an animal in order to feed himself would classify as "animal cruelty."
On June 29 2011 05:54 MilesTeg wrote: Another populist law to get the islamophobic voter. You guys seriously don't have anything better to do?
It's the same in France, they're legislating on everything to please the intolerant majority, and I find the whole debate disgusting.
Besides is the poll is ridiculously biased, and should be removed from the OP.
(this coming from an atheist who doesn't even want to kill a bug...)
The French are so blatantly racist towards the Islamic Religion. In Quebec there was a vote against the hijab, even though maybe 60? people total wear religious garb over their head in Quebec. Its like, really? you're going to cost the governemnt thousands of dollars because you're so racist you cannot allow 60 people to practice their religion??
You can't be racist against a religion... -_-
so blatantly prejudice* whatever, its an internet forum, I care about as much for using correct words, as I do about actually changing peoples opinions about religion. (i dont)
Animal Welfare is using a stunner? The description given in the post does not stand for what the Halal Slaughtering process is. Maybe some of you should look up the Halal Slaughtering process and then see which is better for Animal Welfare
so blatantly prejudice* whatever, its an internet forum, I care about as much for using correct words, as I do about actually changing peoples opinions about religion. (i dont)
You do care about using the term that demonizes your opponent most effectively. I guess that makes you a slightly dishonest person, but I'll just call you a liar.
On June 29 2011 06:02 d[s]c wrote: The kind of meat I eat is fish, other than that, plants and grains.
You eat fish? You monster, poor fish is suffering. You eat plants and grains? You monster, poor animals will starve because of you.
On June 29 2011 06:05 Dizmaul wrote: I never understood why people would assume they can move to a new culture and practice there old one without anyone getting upset hah.
you do understand that Jews practised kosher slaughtering in that area for 1000 years?
On June 29 2011 03:58 Zorgaz wrote: Religion is only acceptable if it doesn't interfere with the law or humane ethics.
Cutting the animals throat isn't humane, of course the animal feels the pain.
It's just a bunch of bull*#&!
you mean, your human ethics.
If animal cruelty doesn't disturb you, then atleast I think that's kinda disturbing.
sorry, cutting the throat of an animal doesnt disturb me. people's ignorance to how the world works does however. Go to africa, tell a village that has 3 goats to survive off of for 2 months that they are disturbing for cutting the throat of a goat for food.
Until we stop treating other humans worse than we treat our food, i will never believe that this kind of arrogant 1st world issue is worth the discussion.
I wouldn't be surprised that people would rather end animal suffering before we end human suffering. If thats what is "humane" i want nothing to do with the word.
Nice strawman. Nobody would argue that a starving African killing an animal in order to feed himself would classify as "animal cruelty."
I think what he's trying to say is that the whole debate is misappropriated energy that would be better spent trying to reduce human suffering.
On June 29 2011 03:58 Zorgaz wrote: Religion is only acceptable if it doesn't interfere with the law or humane ethics.
Cutting the animals throat isn't humane, of course the animal feels the pain.
It's just a bunch of bull*#&!
you mean, your human ethics.
If animal cruelty doesn't disturb you, then atleast I think that's kinda disturbing.
sorry, cutting the throat of an animal doesnt disturb me. people's ignorance to how the world works does however. Go to africa, tell a village that has 3 goats to survive off of for 2 months that they are disturbing for cutting the throat of a goat for food.
Until we stop treating other humans worse than we treat our food, i will never believe that this kind of arrogant 1st world issue is worth the discussion.
I wouldn't be surprised that people would rather end animal suffering before we end human suffering. If thats what is "humane" i want nothing to do with the word.
Nice strawman. Nobody would argue that a starving African killing an animal in order to feed himself would classify as "animal cruelty."
its humans eating food. Its not like they are torturing the animal... last time i checked slicing a throat is a pretty quick way to kill something...
Also in the same vein, we should abolish hunting altogether, fishing, horse racing, or anything where animals are used to fulfill a human's entertainment/eating.
I fully agree with the above poster that this is a huge islamaphobic undertone and if you removed the religious aspect to it and called it a cultural tradition... this wouldnt get a tenth of the attention its gaining.
I am going to the local safeway tonight as an atheist and buying halal meat out of spite. I dislike religion but i rather promote freedom.
I was really hoping someone would quote my post earlier
I wish people would understand what happens in a slaughterhouse is totally different then a ritual animal slaughtering I mean come on. Obvious is Obvious.
On June 29 2011 03:54 emythrel wrote: However, I personally can't stand people who do something "because its traditional" or "because of their religion" when there is a far cleaner, safer and more humane way of achieving the same goal by using modern technology and practices. Therefore I am totally against halal/kosher because it is clinging to outdated and completely ridiculous beliefs (in my opinion, yours may differ and that's fine lol).
That means you don't know what halal/kosher is. Try and read up on it before posting.
It is based on religious beliefs, if thats you're only reason for doing it.... its stupid. I did edit my post to say that if it is equally quick and painless then its fine, even if the reasoning behind it is stupid.
Religious beliefs, then, are stupid? That's rather arrogant. I will not continue a discussion with you, if by the get go my reasoning is already condemned to be "stupid."
Religion itself is stupid
Religion and animal welfare are both stupid. So far it hasn't been scientifically proven that animals suffer more when they are butchered halal/kosher. Therefore, it is just way easier and better to allow it (eventho its bs, as i agree with u)
What about human welfare?
Both Jews and Muslims are upset and suing in San Francisco where there is a voters initiative trying to get forced circumcision on males under 18 years of age (the legal age limit) banned.
On June 29 2011 05:54 MilesTeg wrote: Another populist law to get the islamophobic voter. You guys seriously don't have anything better to do?
It's the same in France, they're legislating on everything to please the intolerant majority, and I find the whole debate disgusting.
Besides is the poll is ridiculously biased, and should be removed from the OP.
(this coming from an atheist who doesn't even want to kill a bug...)
The French are so blatantly racist towards the Islamic Religion. In Quebec there was a vote against the hijab, even though maybe 60? people total wear religious garb over their head in Quebec. Its like, really? you're going to cost the governemnt thousands of dollars because you're so racist you cannot allow 60 people to practice their religion??
Well, religions have costed the government MILLIONS of dollars trying to get things like same-sex marriage banned.
Animals are property, people should have the freedom to treat them however they please (within reason), regardless of whether the reasons are religious or not. Throat slitting is humane enough, consciousness is lost almost instantly. Its been done that way for thousands of years, nobody gave a shit.
Butchering an animal and then eating it is fine, and at the same time we are ok with antagonizing a major social group to save the said animal from a few seconds of pain.
I used to show poultry and afterwards I had to butcher them. They taught you to hang the bird upside down and cut the main artery in the neck. If done correctly the bird is dead in under 1 minute. It is a quick death. I don't see any problem with this type of butchering, it is an effective and humane method and laws against it are just the government trying to stick there noses in places where they don't need to in my opinion.
On June 29 2011 06:05 Dizmaul wrote: I never understood why people would assume they can move to a new culture and practice there old one without anyone getting upset hah.
I never understood why people cant accept that people eat/talk/sleep differently and always think that they are the center of universe which every1 else should orbit in a nice "normal" way. Stop the "it's mah town" b/s please, it's unintellegent and a fascistic way of thinking.
On June 29 2011 06:05 Dizmaul wrote: I never understood why people would assume they can move to a new culture and practice there old one without anyone getting upset hah.
I never understood why people cant accept that people eat/talk/sleep differently and always think that they are the center of universe which every1 else should orbit in a nice "normal" way. Stop the "it's mah town" b/s please, it's unintellegent and a fascistic way of thinking.
Explain why bush meat is banned for importation, female circumcision is outlawed, and stonings and honour killings are prohibited?
i regret having voted, and my impromptu decision was based off of the hugely loaded and unsourced OP. i'm borderline carnivorous but torturing animals or killing them painfully before they are made into food is something i'm against, yet this doesn't seem to do that. i was lead to believe by the OP that it was painful and inconsiderate, so i voted for animal welfare. :l
"The main conclusion of the survey was that ritual slaughter has a number of negative aspects for the animals when compared to conventional procedures where a stun is performed prior to slaughter." (2008)
That said, I think a lot of people are misunderstanding what this is about. It is not about forbidding the act of ritual slaughter. it is about removing an exception in the law that allowed religious groups to do so without a stun.
Personally I think exceptions based on religion should not even exist in the first place.
"The main conclusion of the survey was that ritual slaughter has a number of negative aspects for the animals when compared to conventional procedures where a stun is performed prior to slaughter." (2008)
That said, I think a lot of people are misunderstanding what this is about. It is not about forbidding the act of ritual slaughter. it is about removing an exception in the law that allowed religious groups to do so without a stun.
Personally I think exceptions based on religion should not even exist in the first place.
But you cannot erase other people's beliefs. Besides it's not even a human problem in question. It's asking a religious group to discard a portion of their culture for well beings of beasts that are to be food anyways. Oppressing people for beasts of consumption is blasphemy.
"The main conclusion of the survey was that ritual slaughter has a number of negative aspects for the animals when compared to conventional procedures where a stun is performed prior to slaughter." (2008)
That said, I think a lot of people are misunderstanding what this is about. It is not about forbidding the act of ritual slaughter. it is about removing an exception in the law that allowed religious groups to do so without a stun.
Personally I think exceptions based on religion should not even exist in the first place.
well since i can't read dutch, what are these negative effects? the post which made me change my mind after voting had a source of a scientific study that found that there were no pain signals sent to the brain of an animal slaughtered via slicing the throat, and to be honest even if there was, if it ends its life ASAP afterwards, that's about as good as you can ask for. stunning is pretty painful in itself.
On June 29 2011 06:14 Mutality wrote: Animal Welfare is using a stunner? The description given in the post does not stand for what the Halal Slaughtering process is. Maybe some of you should look up the Halal Slaughtering process and then see which is better for Animal Welfare
"The main conclusion of the survey was that ritual slaughter has a number of negative aspects for the animals when compared to conventional procedures where a stun is performed prior to slaughter." (2008)
That said, I think a lot of people are misunderstanding what this is about. It is not about forbidding the act of ritual slaughter. it is about removing an exception in the law that allowed religious groups to do so without a stun.
Personally I think exceptions based on religion should not even exist in the first place.
well since i can't read dutch, what are these negative effects? the post which made me change my mind after voting had a source of a scientific study that found that there were no pain signals sent to the brain of an animal slaughtered via slicing the throat, and to be honest even if there was, if it ends its life ASAP afterwards, that's about as good as you can ask for. stunning is pretty painful in itself.
so anyways, negative effects?
"The necessity to restrain animals for stunning prior to slaughter so that neck cutting can be properly carried out can induce a great deal of stress to the animals. The neck cut itself will intensify the pain sensation since this area of incision has a high density of pain receptors, in some animals a temporary acute shock may block this sensation of pain. On the other hand, the animals will not be able to express their pain since vocalisation of a pain response is impossible because the trachea has been severed. Furthermore, field studies have shown that neck cutting is often not adequately performed leading to additional attempts resulting in extra animal suffering. During neck cutting it is not unusual to observe the leaking of blood into the trachea which stimulates a sensation of suffocation in those animals that have not yet completely lost consciousness. During conventional slaughter procedures when a stun is performed correctly, the animals will be rapidly become unconscious and remain insensible during severance of large arteries in the neck or chest area and remain so until they bleed to death."
"Concerns are also expressed regarding conventional slaughter procedures. The stunning procedures employed during mechanical, electric and gas methods of stunned slaughter are not always performed correctly."
I just noticed the study is also translated in English, it's worth the read if you're interested in this kind of thing.
On June 29 2011 06:39 Blasterion wrote: But you cannot erase other people's beliefs. Besides it's not even a human problem in question. It's asking a religious group to discard a portion of their culture for well beings of beasts that are to be food anyways. Oppressing people for beasts of consumption is blasphemy.
I completely disagree, I do not think people should be treated differently based on their religion. I don't think it;s worth having that discussion though, as I doubt either of us will change their opinion on the subject. I do recommend you read the study I linked though, as it also provides some interesting recommendations for if animals continue to be slaughtered without stunning.
Personally I think exceptions based on religion should not even exist in the first place.
People who say this on the grounds that government should be "secular" are not thinking this very thoroughly.
What if there was a law that said "You are forbidden from operating a store on Sunday"? You have now discriminated against Orthodox Jews who rely on their stores being opened on Sunday in order to make up for their choice to close them on Saturday, the Shabbat. You are imposing by force of government a Christian-turned-secular norm on Orthodox Jews, and really for no good reason. What's wrong with making an exception for those who practice Shabbat and don't open their stores on Saturday?
Or how about, a law that requires all families to hang up Christmas trees during Christmas, which is now a secular tradition. What about a law that says you cannot skip school except for government-mandated holidays such as Easter and Christmas, which are also secular holidays. No more observing Rosh Hashanah for you!
This doesn't sound like separation of church and state. It sounds like the state interfering with religion, except instead of Catholicism, it's modern secular norms. I agree, the state should impose many modern norms (e.g. no murder) that might clash with religious norms, but the "slippery slope" argument that religious exemptions will lead to an exemption of murder is pretty stupid and fallacious. The above examples could easily involve a reasonable religious exemption that doesn't hurt anyone.
I really couldn't care less about jewish and islamic traditions. The rest of western world has moved on from living like "god" told us to years ago. Why shouldn't they?
Personally I think exceptions based on religion should not even exist in the first place.
People who say this on the grounds that government should be "secular" are not thinking this very thoroughly.
What if there was a law that said "You are forbidden from operating a store on Sunday"? You have now discriminated against Orthodox Jews who rely on their stores being opened on Sunday in order to make up for their choice to close them on Saturday, the Shabbat. You are imposing by force of government a Christian-turned-secular norm on Orthodox Jews, and really for no good reason. What's wrong with making an exception for those who practice Shabbat and don't open their stores on Saturday?
Or how about, a law that requires all families to hang up Christmas trees during Christmas, which is now a secular tradition. What about a law that says you cannot skip school except for government-mandated holidays such as Easter and Christmas, which are also secular holidays. No more observing Rosh Hashanah for you!
This doesn't sound like separation of church and state. It sounds like the state interfering with religion, except instead of Catholicism, it's modern secular norms. I agree, the state should impose many modern norms (e.g. no murder) that might clash with religious norms, but the "slippery slope" argument that religious exemptions will lead to an exemption of murder is pretty stupid and fallacious. The above examples could easily involve a reasonable religious exemption that doesn't hurt anyone.
Um, there is no secular reason to closing stores on Sunday, or requiring families to hang up Christmas trees. That is actually the opposite, and I think you are completely confused. A theocratic state favouring one religion is not a secular state.
EDIT: I think you are confused because of Western society having a calendar that was HISTORICALLY based on Christianity, with many similar holidays. That does not mean that secularism = Christian values only.
Animal rights are definitely a priority rather then accommodating religious traditions in my book. There is no reason to make an animal suffer in death, killing an animal for food is bad enough.
On June 29 2011 07:17 Roflhaxx wrote: I really couldn't care less about jewish and islamic traditions. The rest of western world has moved on from living like "god" told us to years ago. Why shouldn't they?
Because they don't have to. To impose your ideals on to the ideals of other members of humanity for what? For rights of beasts? I don't see how you think beasts of consumption's well being exceeds to rights of humans to have their own culture when that culture do not harm humanity itself. As long as humanity itself remains unharmed I see no wrong in such practices. Also we must not impose such kind of ideals on to others. the last time we did that there was a crusade
On June 29 2011 07:23 Killrwombat wrote: Animal rights are definitely a priority rather then accommodating religious traditions in my book. There is no reason to make an animal suffer in death, killing an animal for food is bad enough.
Keeping Religious tolerance open is definitely a priority rather than Animal rights. There is no reason to make a people suffer in cultural oppression.
On June 29 2011 03:58 Zorgaz wrote: Religion is only acceptable if it doesn't interfere with the law or humane ethics.
Cutting the animals throat isn't humane, of course the animal feels the pain.
It's just a bunch of bull*#&!
you mean, your human ethics.
If animal cruelty doesn't disturb you, then atleast I think that's kinda disturbing.
Everything that you have posted has been in your own perspective, and by the sounds of it, you are a vegan atheist, if not, you're a hypocrite.
Nope i eat meat. I never said I'm against us eating animals.
I do however think that animals know pain aswell as we do and that we should avoid inflicting unnecessary pain on them.
No point making them suffer more.
There is no point on making people suffer buy not allowing them practice their religion just because animals are suffering either.
People don't suffer because they can't cast their magic spell on an animal. Animals do tend to notice small things like choking on their own blood.
I simply weight the very real concern of actuall impulses felt by animals to the imaginary religious reasoning that goes behind this barbarism.
I realise that allowing them to go about this ritual slaughtering without sedating the animal means they will provide no benefit but it will detract from the animal wellfare.
I realise that blocking unsedated ritual slaughter means the animal will suffer less, and it has no practical downside. Some religious people might be upset but then again, when are they not?
Research by a dutch universty clearly proves that this form of slaughter is causing unneeded pain in the animal. Meanwhile most of these supposed works of researching that prove how great ritual slaughter is happen to only be found on muslim/jewish websites and promoted by muslims and jews.
Letting animals suffer for no good reason is ridiculous. The animals can be sedated and THEN ritually slaughtered. Everyone should be happy with that solution except that ofcourse religious people make up some nonesense about how that don't really count.
Times change and religion has to change with it or get left behind. In this case religion was lagging behind and the modern world had to drag it up to speed. Modern societies need not be burdened by barbaric traditions.
Personally I think exceptions based on religion should not even exist in the first place.
People who say this on the grounds that government should be "secular" are not thinking this very thoroughly.
What if there was a law that said "You are forbidden from operating a store on Sunday"? You have now discriminated against Orthodox Jews who rely on their stores being opened on Sunday in order to make up for their choice to close them on Saturday, the Shabbat. You are imposing by force of government a Christian-turned-secular norm on Orthodox Jews, and really for no good reason. What's wrong with making an exception for those who practice Shabbat and don't open their stores on Saturday?
Or how about, a law that requires all families to hang up Christmas trees during Christmas, which is now a secular tradition. What about a law that says you cannot skip school except for government-mandated holidays such as Easter and Christmas, which are also secular holidays. No more observing Rosh Hashanah for you!
This doesn't sound like separation of church and state. It sounds like the state interfering with religion, except instead of Catholicism, it's modern secular norms. I agree, the state should impose many modern norms (e.g. no murder) that might clash with religious norms, but the "slippery slope" argument that religious exemptions will lead to an exemption of murder is pretty stupid and fallacious. The above examples could easily involve a reasonable religious exemption that doesn't hurt anyone.
All your examples (except the xmas tree one, because its ridiculous in terms of privacy) are in fact laws over here (netherlands).
It is illegal to skip school for holidays that aren't recognized by the government, and most recognized holidays are christian in their nature.
It is also illegal to open a store on a sunday, the only way to obtain an exemption is on the basis of tourism.
In both cases, there has never been a need for exemptions on religious grounds. Dutch society is much more unitary then the US (for example).
This is a stupid law firstly because the whole reason its halal or kosher is to make the animal suffer the least pain possible. It has also been proven that it is the least painful method, So why bother trying to put this law through? Im pretty sure its just to piss of people, I cant think of anyother reason. Have you guys forgotten what corporations do to animals while they are alive? and how they kill them?
IDK why people are already arguing how the way Muslims and Jews slaughter animals is cruel?
Personally I think exceptions based on religion should not even exist in the first place.
People who say this on the grounds that government should be "secular" are not thinking this very thoroughly.
What if there was a law that said "You are forbidden from operating a store on Sunday"? You have now discriminated against Orthodox Jews who rely on their stores being opened on Sunday in order to make up for their choice to close them on Saturday, the Shabbat. You are imposing by force of government a Christian-turned-secular norm on Orthodox Jews, and really for no good reason. What's wrong with making an exception for those who practice Shabbat and don't open their stores on Saturday?
Or how about, a law that requires all families to hang up Christmas trees during Christmas, which is now a secular tradition. What about a law that says you cannot skip school except for government-mandated holidays such as Easter and Christmas, which are also secular holidays. No more observing Rosh Hashanah for you!
This doesn't sound like separation of church and state. It sounds like the state interfering with religion, except instead of Catholicism, it's modern secular norms. I agree, the state should impose many modern norms (e.g. no murder) that might clash with religious norms, but the "slippery slope" argument that religious exemptions will lead to an exemption of murder is pretty stupid and fallacious. The above examples could easily involve a reasonable religious exemption that doesn't hurt anyone.
All your examples (except the xmas tree one, because its ridiculous in terms of privacy) are in fact laws over here (netherlands).
It is illegal to skip school for holidays that aren't recognized by the government, and most recognized holidays are christian in their nature.
It is also illegal to open a store on a sunday, the only way to obtain an exemption is on the basis of tourism.
In both cases, there has never been a need for exemptions on religious grounds. Dutch society is much more unitary then the US (for example).
Dutch government is NOT secular if it's saying that stores are not allowed to open on Sunday or if it only recognizes Christian holidays for workers. It's being religious/ethnocentric, NOT secular.
On June 29 2011 06:05 Dizmaul wrote: I never understood why people would assume they can move to a new culture and practice there old one without anyone getting upset hah.
I never understood why people cant accept that people eat/talk/sleep differently and always think that they are the center of universe which every1 else should orbit in a nice "normal" way. Stop the "it's mah town" b/s please, it's unintellegent and a fascistic way of thinking.
To bad the world doesn't work that way. Its because people eat/talk/sleep different that they decide to live separated. Its spelled unintelligent btw.
On June 29 2011 03:58 Zorgaz wrote: Religion is only acceptable if it doesn't interfere with the law or humane ethics.
Cutting the animals throat isn't humane, of course the animal feels the pain.
It's just a bunch of bull*#&!
you mean, your human ethics.
If animal cruelty doesn't disturb you, then atleast I think that's kinda disturbing.
Everything that you have posted has been in your own perspective, and by the sounds of it, you are a vegan atheist, if not, you're a hypocrite.
Nope i eat meat. I never said I'm against us eating animals.
I do however think that animals know pain aswell as we do and that we should avoid inflicting unnecessary pain on them.
No point making them suffer more.
There is no point on making people suffer buy not allowing them practice their religion just because animals are suffering either.
People don't suffer because they can't cast their magic spell on an animal. Animals do tend to notice small things like choking on their own blood.
I simply weight the very real concern of actuall impulses felt by animals to the imaginary religious reasoning that goes behind this barbarism.
I realise that allowing them to go about this ritual slaughtering without sedating the animal means they will provide no benefit but it will detract from the animal wellfare.
I realise that blocking unsedated ritual slaughter means the animal will suffer less, and it has no practical downside. Some religious people might be upset but then again, when are they not?
Research by a dutch universty clearly proves that this form of slaughter is causing unneeded pain in the animal. Meanwhile most of these supposed works of researching that prove how great ritual slaughter is happen to only be found on muslim/jewish websites and promoted by muslims and jews.
Letting animals suffer for no good reason is ridiculous. The animals can be sedated and THEN ritually slaughtered. Everyone should be happy with that solution except that ofcourse religious people make up some nonesense about how that don't really count.
Times change and religion has to change with it or get left behind. In this case religion was lagging behind and the modern world had to drag it up to speed. Modern societies need not be burdened by barbaric traditions.
I'll put it in simple terms. Religious Freedom are Human Rights Animal Welfare are Animal Rights
When Human rights are in question, Animal rights must yield to human rights due to priority reasons Because Humans > Animals To limit human rights of religion to prioritize animal rights is unreasonable because you are allowing animal rights to exceed the rights of those of human beings. Now you may ask Religion is a superficial quality while life and pain is more concrete. Of course we're talking about Culture vs. A life here but still it is a Human Culture vs a Bestial Life. We as humans should accomodate cultures of those other members of humanity as long as it does not bring harm to humanity.
On June 29 2011 07:36 shizna wrote: does a lion stun the gazelle before tearing it's throat out?
Well you while I am suppose to agree with you...... A lion is a beast, Humans are humans. Beasts have bestial ways, Humans have those ways of humans (Which includes religious butchering btw)
As much as I don't care for random religion traditions, I don't think the knocking some poor animal unconscious is gonna do much since you are gonna kill it anyways.
If you really care about animal rights how about you just stop eating them?
There is no difference in the animals meat any way it is butchered, so the humane way should be the only way of killing it. None of them would know the difference either way, so why is this even a discussion? Religion makes you do irrational things. Needing to kill an animal in a particular way is one of those.
On June 29 2011 07:29 Nuri wrote: This is a stupid law firstly because the whole reason its halal or kosher is to make the animal suffer the least pain possible. It has also been proven that it is the least painful method, So why bother trying to put this law through? Im pretty sure its just to piss of people, I cant think of anyother reason. Have you guys forgotten what corporations do to animals while they are alive? and how they kill them?
IDK why people are already arguing how the way Muslims and Jews slaughter animals is cruel?
Show me a few sources that have all this "proof"? All I have seen on it in this thread is a study from a Dutch university claiming it is in fact worse. I've also seen a few videos of it being done and from the ones I have seen ( I know those vegan propaganda movies always will show worst case scenarios) the slitting of the animals throat while it is alive seems awful compared to when it is knocked out first
Personally I think exceptions based on religion should not even exist in the first place.
People who say this on the grounds that government should be "secular" are not thinking this very thoroughly.
What if there was a law that said "You are forbidden from operating a store on Sunday"? You have now discriminated against Orthodox Jews who rely on their stores being opened on Sunday in order to make up for their choice to close them on Saturday, the Shabbat. You are imposing by force of government a Christian-turned-secular norm on Orthodox Jews, and really for no good reason. What's wrong with making an exception for those who practice Shabbat and don't open their stores on Saturday?
Or how about, a law that requires all families to hang up Christmas trees during Christmas, which is now a secular tradition. What about a law that says you cannot skip school except for government-mandated holidays such as Easter and Christmas, which are also secular holidays. No more observing Rosh Hashanah for you!
This doesn't sound like separation of church and state. It sounds like the state interfering with religion, except instead of Catholicism, it's modern secular norms. I agree, the state should impose many modern norms (e.g. no murder) that might clash with religious norms, but the "slippery slope" argument that religious exemptions will lead to an exemption of murder is pretty stupid and fallacious. The above examples could easily involve a reasonable religious exemption that doesn't hurt anyone.
All your examples (except the xmas tree one, because its ridiculous in terms of privacy) are in fact laws over here (netherlands).
It is illegal to skip school for holidays that aren't recognized by the government, and most recognized holidays are christian in their nature.
It is also illegal to open a store on a sunday, the only way to obtain an exemption is on the basis of tourism.
In both cases, there has never been a need for exemptions on religious grounds. Dutch society is much more unitary then the US (for example).
Dutch government is NOT secular if it's saying that stores are not allowed to open on Sunday or if it only recognizes Christian holidays for workers. It's being religious/ethnocentric, NOT secular.
I never said it was.
Every law can be chased to it's historical roots, and choosing the sunday as a day of rest back then was convenient for everyone for reasons including religion. Over time, it becomes less and less part of religion and more of a traditional given within the country. So now all stores are closed on sunday, and from time to time it causes a little bit of a fuzz for purely economical reasons, but I've never heard anyone publicly argue that the stores should be open on sunday because of religious equality.
Sometimes when it comes to secular issues you've got to be able to say 'big deal' and move on.
On June 29 2011 07:42 MethodSC wrote: There is no difference in the animals meat any way it is butchered, so the humane way should be the only way of killing it. None of them would know the difference either way, so why is this even a discussion? Religion makes you do irrational things. Needing to kill an animal in a particular way is one of those.
I don't agree
Animal welfare has a lot more problems than halal/kosher butchering. There are millions of animals dying a slow and painful death because of factory farming not even going to be eaten, therefore dying an useless death for example.
The irony of this is that the entire purpose behind both the Jewish and Muslim traditions is the humane slaughter of animals.
"Mammals and fowl must be slaughtered by a trained individual (a shochet) using a special method of slaughter, shechita (Deuteronomy 12:21). Among other features, shechita slaughter severs the jugular vein, carotid artery, esophagus and trachea in a single continuous cutting movement with an unserrated, sharp knife, which is intended to avoid unnecessary pain to the animal as consciousness is lost quickly due to loss of cerebral blood pressure." (from Kosher on wikipedia)
Stunning the animal first is more humane. But it is perhaps the difference between a split second of pain before death and none.
I wonder how many of the people in this thread actually pay attention to the means by which their meat is slaughtered - if you live in the US and are not eating kosher or halal meat, believe me, your meat is not being slaughtered humanely.
Just knowing that 180 people think we should kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style, just because of religion. THAT SHIT MAKES ME SAD(and rage)
On June 29 2011 07:29 Nuri wrote: This is a stupid law firstly because the whole reason its halal or kosher is to make the animal suffer the least pain possible. It has also been proven that it is the least painful method, So why bother trying to put this law through? Im pretty sure its just to piss of people, I cant think of anyother reason. Have you guys forgotten what corporations do to animals while they are alive? and how they kill them?
IDK why people are already arguing how the way Muslims and Jews slaughter animals is cruel?
Show me a few sources that have all this "proof"? All I have seen on it in this thread is a study from a Dutch university claiming it is in fact worse. I've also seen a few videos of it being done and from the ones I have seen ( I know those vegan propaganda movies always will show worst case scenarios) the slitting of the animals throat while it is alive seems awful compared to when it is knocked out first
The only time I've witnessed Halal slaughter is from an episode of Bizarre Foods with Andrew Zimmern. It didn't turn out too well. I tried to upload the clip to youtube but it had a stupid green bar but it's still somewhat watchable..
It's hard to see with the video quality, but there is blood gushing out of its neck the entire time it is running around and slipping on its own blood
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
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
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
I feel like this should be added to the OP. Clearly the poll options are, shall we say, misguided at best, and intentionally manipulative at worst.
On June 29 2011 07:29 Nuri wrote: This is a stupid law firstly because the whole reason its halal or kosher is to make the animal suffer the least pain possible. It has also been proven that it is the least painful method, So why bother trying to put this law through? Im pretty sure its just to piss of people, I cant think of anyother reason. Have you guys forgotten what corporations do to animals while they are alive? and how they kill them?
IDK why people are already arguing how the way Muslims and Jews slaughter animals is cruel?
Show me a few sources that have all this "proof"? All I have seen on it in this thread is a study from a Dutch university claiming it is in fact worse. I've also seen a few videos of it being done and from the ones I have seen ( I know those vegan propaganda movies always will show worst case scenarios) the slitting of the animals throat while it is alive seems awful compared to when it is knocked out first
Western University, western lead scientist. Can't see anyone claiming too much bias in this article, though it is a bit old.
It's an interesting read, but it only compares religious slaughter and captive bolt stunning when more methods of stunning an animal are available. It also does not address all of the points I mentioned earlier. Animal stress and mistakes during slaughter are still very real possibilities.
On June 29 2011 07:56 BlackJack wrote: The only time I've witnessed Halal slaughter is from an episode of Bizarre Foods with Andrew Zimmern. It didn't turn out too well. I tried to upload the clip to youtube but it had a stupid green bar but it's still somewhat watchable..
I always go to a Halal butcher get my meat. Not that i really care how they kill their cows, but their meat is good As long as you're not torturing it of course.
I don't think the government should really dictate this sort of thing but hey it seems most ppl want the govt to regulate every little single thing. sigh.
The whole point of those butchering practices WAS animal welfare. This just seems like the traditions haven't gotten with the times (if it is indeed more humane).
So I think the poll in OP is a little weird and dumb. Obviously we didn't have electroshocking back in the day.
Personally I think exceptions based on religion should not even exist in the first place.
People who say this on the grounds that government should be "secular" are not thinking this very thoroughly.
What if there was a law that said "You are forbidden from operating a store on Sunday"? You have now discriminated against Orthodox Jews who rely on their stores being opened on Sunday in order to make up for their choice to close them on Saturday, the Shabbat. You are imposing by force of government a Christian-turned-secular norm on Orthodox Jews, and really for no good reason. What's wrong with making an exception for those who practice Shabbat and don't open their stores on Saturday?
Or how about, a law that requires all families to hang up Christmas trees during Christmas, which is now a secular tradition. What about a law that says you cannot skip school except for government-mandated holidays such as Easter and Christmas, which are also secular holidays. No more observing Rosh Hashanah for you!
This doesn't sound like separation of church and state. It sounds like the state interfering with religion, except instead of Catholicism, it's modern secular norms. I agree, the state should impose many modern norms (e.g. no murder) that might clash with religious norms, but the "slippery slope" argument that religious exemptions will lead to an exemption of murder is pretty stupid and fallacious. The above examples could easily involve a reasonable religious exemption that doesn't hurt anyone.
Why would the government forbid people from operating stores on Sunday? Your analogy makes no sense. At a certain point, antiquated religious beliefs go to far. A certain unnamed religion also says gays should be stoned, so by your logic government shouldn't interfere when they stone gays?
Fact is, the supreme rule of law should always be the country's law. And protecting animals from suffering (and whether this law does or not is another matter entirely) should be a government concern.
Are 188 people truly willing to put logically unbased traditions from ages ago in front of the unobjective suffering of animals (that was the exact decision, if the Kosher/Hallal slaughtering could be done with equal or less stress caused as when the animals were sedated then it could continue but otherwise (which is pretty much always) it couldnt)? Wow.
I think it's a poor assumption to say that food slaughtered under Muslim and Jewish traditions is at odds with animal welfare. I think that a swift cut to the main arteries of the neck is much more in line with "animal welfare" than the treatment animals receive at many slaughterhouses.
Always the same blind and clueless bashing on religion when the history has proven that Humans don't need any religion to be violent.
When you kill an animal with your hands, actually it gives your more responsability on what you are eating and what means eating meat on a daily basis. Clearly our modern society doesn't respect more animals than religious one because we don't even know how the animals are treated before we eat them and how they are killed, All the killing move on animals are done by machine, now killing an animal means nothing for us, you just buy your meat at the supermaket and you are done with it.
Where the ancient and religious societies are more aware of the responsability by eating meat because they have to kill and dismember the animal manually, and trust me when you see how it's done manually (i saw it with my eyes), you become a vegetarian or you respect alot more the animals and eat less meat.
acually, i think the topic starter should be banned for this. putting on the one side animal welfare and on the other side Jewish and Muslim traditions is clearly racist.
it implies Jewish and Muslim traditions is contrary to animal wellfare. without even giving the posibility of thought that the so called Jewish and Muslim tradition in slaughtering animals might be more humane, than the common version in the west. it clearly creates a bias because , hey who would be against animal wellfare, im not, are you?!!
Personally I think exceptions based on religion should not even exist in the first place.
People who say this on the grounds that government should be "secular" are not thinking this very thoroughly.
What if there was a law that said "You are forbidden from operating a store on Sunday"? You have now discriminated against Orthodox Jews who rely on their stores being opened on Sunday in order to make up for their choice to close them on Saturday, the Shabbat. You are imposing by force of government a Christian-turned-secular norm on Orthodox Jews, and really for no good reason. What's wrong with making an exception for those who practice Shabbat and don't open their stores on Saturday?
Or how about, a law that requires all families to hang up Christmas trees during Christmas, which is now a secular tradition. What about a law that says you cannot skip school except for government-mandated holidays such as Easter and Christmas, which are also secular holidays. No more observing Rosh Hashanah for you!
This doesn't sound like separation of church and state. It sounds like the state interfering with religion, except instead of Catholicism, it's modern secular norms. I agree, the state should impose many modern norms (e.g. no murder) that might clash with religious norms, but the "slippery slope" argument that religious exemptions will lead to an exemption of murder is pretty stupid and fallacious. The above examples could easily involve a reasonable religious exemption that doesn't hurt anyone.
You're basing your argument on several examples of religious based laws. Obviously, I disagree with them. If it weren't for the obvious economic implications people should be allowed to operate their stores on Sundays (which in the Netherlands is not allowed, few exceptions aside). There's no way people should be forced to take part in religious events. Finally, I think people should be able to skip schooldays for religious reasons as long as it doesn't interfere with their education (in the Netherlands this is the case, although the rules to do so are very strict).
On June 29 2011 08:24 mmm wrote: acually, i think the topic starter should be banned for this. putting on the one side animal welfare and on the other side Jewish and Muslim traditions is clearly racist.
it implies Jewish and Muslim traditions is contrary to animal wellfare. without even giving the posibility of thought that the so called Jewish and Muslim tradition in slaughtering animals might be more humane, than the common version in the west. it clearly creates a bias because , hey who would be against animal wellfare, im not, are you?!!
yea, there's a lot to be discussed here about the merits of each method presented and I'm still waiting on the OP to link anything that talks about this going on in the Netherlands. There should also be a link to a detailed and reputable source for each method, otherwise, this is only going to spark stupid responses.
I can't see how swiftly cutting an animals throat could be that cruel to the animal? I mean, it's going to DIE, does the amount of pain during the last seconds really play that big part?
If I had to choose a way to get killed, a sliced throat seems rather painless compared to many other methods. And the animals aren't awared that they're going to die, so rendering them unconscious doesn't help them against the mental torture of knowing that you're going to die (as it would with a human).
Just let the jews and the muslims have their traditions. If you want to focus on animal rights, focus on their living conditions, not if their death is painful.
Or, you could focus on something important, like world hunger, over population, green energy sources, etc. These kind of questions upset people, while not really achieving anything important even if it goes through. Such a waste of time, if you ask me.
From what I hear about halal chicken, the only difference is that the butchering shop has to pay an imam to pray for the poultry.
I'm not very good with religious traditions, but does it say anywhere in the Tora or Quaran that the livestock has to be at full consciousness? I thought the point was that the creature had to be bled dry - which is not too different from modern butchering techniques.
Regardless, I would be a lot more concerned about the livestock's life and upbringing, as opposed to its death.
This is an extremely simple debate but loaded because of religious people who compare stuff with WWII.
It was decided that butchering should be done in the most animal friendly way. In the modern world we have ways to measure stress and pain and means to reduce it.
Therefore, it was banned to butcher without first making the animal go unconsciousness. Only when they were unable to feel pain, it was allowed to kill them.
In the Netherlands under the constitution, religious people have more rights than nonreligious people. Freedom of religion is very strong here and you can do things that are illegal otherwise if it us under the umbrella of religion. Freedom of speech is one thing. You can call for gay people to be killed as long as you can claim it is a religious view. If it is a religious view, you are protected. If not, it is illegal under other laws.
Same with schools. People can get money from the taxpayer to fund their own school if and only if the school is based on religious ideology. It's part of freedom of religion to get free money to have a religious school. Other ideologies can't get this money because religion is not like other ideologies. It has special rights.
Because of the special status of anything religious, it was still allowed to butcher without stunning as long as it was under the umbrella of freedom of religion. In the torah it states that an animal is only kosher if it can walk 4 paces after the throat is slit. If not, the animal is probably sick and not safe to eat. This is perfect fine stone age logic. Stone age logic no longer applies. But it is seen as religious dogma right now. Not following religious dogma is considered a sin. All completely silly.
If you ask me the religious people have an argument. What needs to happen is the constitution has to be changed. The constitution is what it is now because of the persecution of protestant Christians. Freedom of religion needs to be protected but it needs to put non religious people on an equal level with religious people. It doesn't do that because the text is archaic and obsolete. Not having a religion is currently not protected by the constitution. Non religious people are second class citizens. You can't start a Keynesian school. But you can start a Scientology school, using taxpayer money. When you claim Keynesian is a religion it suddenly gets special privileges and you can fund a Keynesian school.
If Keynesianism claims to be a religion then suddenly other constitutional rights are removed to allow for religious practices, if the religion of Keynesiamism demands for this.
Under the current constitution, children have no freedom of religion. Children are brainwashed by tax payer money in schools founded on this religion. No one protects their right of growing up without believing they can be of another religion than the religion of their parents.
This case just shows the freedom of religion needs to be entirely removed from the constitutional. Freedom of religion is already part of freedom of speech and expression. Religion as an ideology is just like any other ideology, be it economic, scientific, cultural, or whatever.
So yes, this new law does collide with the constitutional rights of religious people, and that's exactly the problem. It shouldn't.
If someone slits your throat when you are perfectly conscious, you will suffer. If you are unconscious and someone slits your throat, you will feel way less. The law says animals should be slaughtered only in the least painful way possible. So that bans halal and kosher slaughtering because in the bible or quran they didn't have anesthesia, obviously..
Right now, Muslim people don't dare to say much. But jewish people are very vocal. They bring up Hitler and what he did and lie that if the throat of an animal is slit fast and skillfully enough, you can't feel it. Also, they bring in other issues about if eating animals should be moral even if you slaughter in the least painful way. Then these Jewish people threaten to go to terrorist state of Israel. I say, go. We don't need you in our modern society. Don't use the holocaust argument against us. Don't bring up that you were in a concentration camp.
So really religious people are lying and the animal rights party, who are vegetarians and want to abolish factory farming completely, just put their finger at a very sore point in our society.
On top of that, Islamic clerics claim that slaughtering an animal while it is unconscious is perfectly halal and a large percentage of halal meat in the Netherlands is already slaughtered that way.
When some religious group claims the only non sinful way to slaughter an animal is to throw it off the highest building in the country during working days at 4 PM, does not allowing that mean you are denying their right to have the religious ideology they choose to want? Really, if we give religious people special rights, were do we draw the line.
As for protection minorities especially, I am fully for that. Why? Because in a democracy, minorities are weak and have little power. Their rights need to be protected especially well. But animals are part of this group. Animals need to be protected. Greeks believed animals and rocks were the same thing. Now we know mammals suffer as much as humans and other animals are not far off. They are just less smart and their consciousness is at a way lower level.
If my religion is to whack off squirrels and then eat there heads. Damn right I should be able to whose to say all your religion is not crazy or the only right one. If animal welfare had its way we would be able to eat steaks or hamburgers. Only difference between Live Stock and Animals is we deemed them that.
Being unconscious doesn't mean you don't feel pain if it was that simple people executed by the state would just be knocked over the head, you're killing something it's not animal friendly to kill them just because they don't flop around as much when it's unconscious meaning it's easier for YOU to look at doesn't mean it wont feel the same pain.
On June 29 2011 07:50 smallerk wrote: Just knowing that 180 people think we should kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style, just because of religion. THAT SHIT MAKES ME SAD(and rage)
On June 29 2011 07:50 smallerk wrote: Just knowing that 180 people think we should kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style, just because of religion. THAT SHIT MAKES ME SAD(and rage)
On June 29 2011 07:50 smallerk wrote: Just knowing that 180 people think we should kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style, just because of religion. THAT SHIT MAKES ME SAD(and rage)
180 people believe in freedom.
I hope you aren't serious.
entirely serious. why do they not deserve the freedom to have food prepared in the way that is their tradition?
On June 29 2011 07:50 smallerk wrote: Just knowing that 180 people think we should kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style, just because of religion. THAT SHIT MAKES ME SAD(and rage)
180 people believe in freedom.
180 people believe in the freedom to kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style just because of religion*
On June 29 2011 07:50 smallerk wrote: Just knowing that 180 people think we should kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style, just because of religion. THAT SHIT MAKES ME SAD(and rage)
180 people believe in freedom.
180 people believe in the freedom to kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style just because of religion*
Vegetarian right? I sure as hell hope you don't eat chicken.... I dont even want to tell you what people do with chickens!
On June 29 2011 07:50 smallerk wrote: Just knowing that 180 people think we should kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style, just because of religion. THAT SHIT MAKES ME SAD(and rage)
180 people believe in freedom.
180 people believe in the freedom to kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style just because of religion*
On June 29 2011 07:50 smallerk wrote: Just knowing that 180 people think we should kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style, just because of religion. THAT SHIT MAKES ME SAD(and rage)
180 people believe in freedom.
180 people believe in the freedom to kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style just because of religion*
and a bunch of people think that the choices of the poll are dumb because it implies that kosher/halal is not in the interest of animal welfare.
On June 29 2011 07:50 smallerk wrote: Just knowing that 180 people think we should kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style, just because of religion. THAT SHIT MAKES ME SAD(and rage)
180 people believe in freedom.
180 people believe in the freedom to kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style just because of religion*
Even if humans > animals, why ' human false beliefs > real animal suffering '.
What if a cow believes cow > human. What objective argument do we have that it is indeed human > cow and not cow > human? I would pick a human life over the life as a cow, but I have no perfectly sound and objective argument for that. And even if it is objectively true that humans > cows, what does it matter if we can't convince cows that this is true?
Might does not make right. Even the people who wrote the bible, with their Taliban morality, knew better than that.
Humans are animals, yes. Religious dogma is just wrong here. They can claim we are divine and angel-like all they want. There is only one reality.
Reminds me of Florida where they outlawed humans having sex with animals, including the animals known as humans.
On June 29 2011 07:50 smallerk wrote: Just knowing that 180 people think we should kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style, just because of religion. THAT SHIT MAKES ME SAD(and rage)
180 people believe in freedom.
180 people believe in the freedom to kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style just because of religion*
Humans > Animals
Therefore
Religious tradition > Animal life
Id much prefer Predator > Prey
Humans are animals.
Technically yes, but they are a unique form of them, which makes them more than just plain animals.
On June 29 2011 09:10 Hekisui wrote: Even if humans > animals, why human false beliefs > real animal suffering.
What if a cow believes cow > human. What objective argument do we have that it is indeed human > cow and not cow > human?
Might does not make right. Even the people who wrote the bible, with their Taliban morality, knew better than that.
Do you have the right to judge, that muslim/jewish beliefs are false beliefs? When muslims/jews believe they go to hell, if they eat non kosher/halal meat, do you have the right to deny their eternal peace, just because you are of the opinion, that they have a false belief? Humans stand over animals, so their religious freedom stands over the animal welfare.
On June 29 2011 07:50 smallerk wrote: Just knowing that 180 people think we should kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style, just because of religion. THAT SHIT MAKES ME SAD(and rage)
180 people believe in freedom.
I hope you aren't serious.
entirely serious. why do they not deserve the freedom to have food prepared in the way that is their tradition?
So chopping of a thieves hand and stoning women for a divorce is totally fine too, right?
It's religion man.
people seem to come up with the most retarded things saying "FREEDOM YO!"
On June 29 2011 07:50 smallerk wrote: Just knowing that 180 people think we should kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style, just because of religion. THAT SHIT MAKES ME SAD(and rage)
180 people believe in freedom.
180 people believe in the freedom to kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style just because of religion*
Vegetarian right? I sure as hell hope you don't eat chicken.... I dont even want to tell you what people do with chickens!
I'm sure you have a point that you're trying to make in your mind but it's not coming across on paper.
On June 29 2011 07:50 smallerk wrote: Just knowing that 180 people think we should kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style, just because of religion. THAT SHIT MAKES ME SAD(and rage)
180 people believe in freedom.
I hope you aren't serious.
entirely serious. why do they not deserve the freedom to have food prepared in the way that is their tradition?
So chopping of a thieves hand and stoning women for a divorce is totally fine too, right?
It's religion man.
people seem to come up with the most retarded things saying "FREEDOM YO!"
It has little to do with their religion. Im against religion myself, but all for freedom. If it was their cultural tradition, would you still be against it?
On June 29 2011 07:50 smallerk wrote: Just knowing that 180 people think we should kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style, just because of religion. THAT SHIT MAKES ME SAD(and rage)
180 people believe in freedom.
180 people believe in the freedom to kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style just because of religion*
Vegetarian right? I sure as hell hope you don't eat chicken.... I dont even want to tell you what people do with chickens!
I'm sure you have a point that you're trying to make in your mind but it's not coming across on paper.
Ever hear of the term "running around like a chicken with its head cut off" ?
On June 29 2011 07:50 smallerk wrote: Just knowing that 180 people think we should kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style, just because of religion. THAT SHIT MAKES ME SAD(and rage)
180 people believe in freedom.
180 people believe in the freedom to kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style just because of religion*
Humans > Animals
Therefore
Religious tradition > Animal life
Humans > Animals
Therefore
New England Patriots > Miami Dolphins
Interesting.. I possess the ability to write down logical fallacies as well
On June 29 2011 09:10 Zetter wrote: Do you have the right to judge, that muslim/jewish beliefs are false beliefs? When muslims/jews believe they go to hell, if they eat non kosher/halal meat, do you have the right to deny their eternal peace, just because you are of the opinion, that they have a false belief? Humans stand over animals, so their religious freedom stands over the animal welfare.
It's not about claiming for yourself the right to be the authority on how the world ought to be interpreted. It is about realizing there is only one objective reality and that factual comments are either true or false. It is either a fact that an animal suffers more, less or equally as much when slit conscious or unconscious. Religious people can claim all they want they can decide what is correct and what is erroneous all by themselves. They can claim all they want that it is part of their religious freedom do believe an objective reality doesn't exist or is either what they want it to be. They can claim all they want that all science in the world is wrong because their god tells them something else. They can claim all they want that something that is erroneous becomes correct the moment they believe it as a religious ideology.
But that doesn't mean they aren't wrong. Where does it say in the Dutch constitution you can never be wrong about something as long as it is a religious view? It doesn't say that anywhere.
Religious people have the right to be wrong. But they don't have the right to break the law by claiming they have the religious freedom to be wrong exactly because they believe they are right.
It's so easy to make a reductio ad absurdum here, but I see others have already made a few attempt. Correct your views, seriously.
On June 29 2011 07:50 smallerk wrote: Just knowing that 180 people think we should kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style, just because of religion. THAT SHIT MAKES ME SAD(and rage)
180 people believe in freedom.
180 people believe in the freedom to kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style just because of religion*
Vegetarian right? I sure as hell hope you don't eat chicken.... I dont even want to tell you what people do with chickens!
I'm sure you have a point that you're trying to make in your mind but it's not coming across on paper.
Ever hear of the term "running around like a chicken with its head cut off" ?
I guess you missed it but I was hinting with my last post that you could probably form a better argument if you wrote more than ten words instead of expecting the reader to infer what you are trying to argue.
On June 29 2011 07:50 smallerk wrote: Just knowing that 180 people think we should kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style, just because of religion. THAT SHIT MAKES ME SAD(and rage)
180 people believe in freedom.
180 people believe in the freedom to kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style just because of religion*
Humans > Animals
Therefore
Religious tradition > Animal life
Humans > Animals
Therefore
New England Patriots > Miami Dolphins
Interesting.. I possess the ability to write down logical fallacies as well
It would be interesting, if my conclusion was a logical fallacy.
But to make it more specific, I could also say:
Humans > Animals
Therefore
Eternal Life of a human > Fleshly life of an animal
On June 29 2011 09:10 Zetter wrote: Do you have the right to judge, that muslim/jewish beliefs are false beliefs? When muslims/jews believe they go to hell, if they eat non kosher/halal meat, do you have the right to deny their eternal peace, just because you are of the opinion, that they have a false belief? Humans stand over animals, so their religious freedom stands over the animal welfare.
It's not about claiming for yourself the right to be the authority on how the world ought to be interpreted. It is about realizing there is only one objective reality and that factual comments are either true or false. It is either a fact that an animal suffers more, less or equally as much when slit conscious or unconscious. Religious people can claim all they want they can decide what is correct and what is erroneous all by themselves. They can claim all they want that it is part of their religious freedom do believe an objective reality doesn't exist or is either what they want it to be. They can claim all they want that all science in the world is wrong because their god tells them something else. They can claim all they want that something that is erroneous becomes correct the moment they believe it as a religious ideology.
But that doesn't mean they aren't wrong. Where does it say in the Dutch constitution you can never be wrong about something as long as it is a religious view? It doesn't say that anywhere.
Religious people have the right to be wrong. But they don't have the right to break the law by claiming they have the religious freedom to be wrong exactly because they believe they are right.
It's so easy to make a reductio ad absurdum here, but I see others have already made a few attempt. Correct your views, seriously.
You can't be serious. Of course a religious view could be wrong. But people wouldn't believe in their religion, if they wouldn't think that they are in fact right. A jew/muslim (or at least an orthodox jew/muslim) actually thinks that they go to hell, if they eat non kosher/halal meat. That is the objective reality for them. And the dutch constitution gives them the right to believe that. And as I said, the eternal life of a human being is worth a lot more than the earthly life of an animal.
On June 29 2011 09:10 Hekisui wrote: What if a cow believes cow > human. What objective argument do we have that it is indeed human > cow and not cow > human? I would pick a human life over the life as a cow, but I have no perfectly sound and objective argument for that. And even if it is objectively true that humans > cows, what does it matter if we can't convince cows that this is true?
Preservation of the species. If saving the human instead of the cow will help keep the human species alive, and I have to pick one, I will kill the cow.
On the other hand, preservation of the self. If the other human will decrease the chance of my survival because of his food requirements, then I will kill the human and keep the cow so I can drink its milk.
Might does not make right. Even the people who wrote the bible, with their Taliban morality, knew better than that.
But it does.
Humans are animals, yes. Religious dogma is just wrong here. They can claim we are divine and angel-like all they want. There is only one reality.
I would argue sentience and language are pretty big indicators that we aren't just 'animals'.
On June 29 2011 03:54 emythrel wrote: However, I personally can't stand people who do something "because its traditional" or "because of their religion" when there is a far cleaner, safer and more humane way of achieving the same goal by using modern technology and practices. Therefore I am totally against halal/kosher because it is clinging to outdated and completely ridiculous beliefs (in my opinion, yours may differ and that's fine lol).
That means you don't know what halal/kosher is. Try and read up on it before posting.
It is based on religious beliefs, if thats you're only reason for doing it.... its stupid. I did edit my post to say that if it is equally quick and painless then its fine, even if the reasoning behind it is stupid.
Religious beliefs, then, are stupid? That's rather arrogant. I will not continue a discussion with you, if by the get go my reasoning is already condemned to be "stupid."
Religion itself is stupid
Religion and animal welfare are both stupid. So far it hasn't been scientifically proven that animals suffer more when they are butchered halal/kosher. Therefore, it is just way easier and better to allow it (eventho its bs, as i agree with u)
What about human welfare?
Both Jews and Muslims are upset and suing in San Francisco where there is a voters initiative trying to get forced circumcision on males under 18 years of age (the legal age limit) banned.
On June 29 2011 05:54 MilesTeg wrote: Another populist law to get the islamophobic voter. You guys seriously don't have anything better to do?
It's the same in France, they're legislating on everything to please the intolerant majority, and I find the whole debate disgusting.
Besides is the poll is ridiculously biased, and should be removed from the OP.
(this coming from an atheist who doesn't even want to kill a bug...)
The French are so blatantly racist towards the Islamic Religion. In Quebec there was a vote against the hijab, even though maybe 60? people total wear religious garb over their head in Quebec. Its like, really? you're going to cost the governemnt thousands of dollars because you're so racist you cannot allow 60 people to practice their religion??
Well, religions have costed the government MILLIONS of dollars trying to get things like same-sex marriage banned.
Contrary to popular belief, religion is a set of ideals, people who follow religion are not the religion itself. What you meant to say is that the Christian Majority often spends the governments money in ways that are not beneficial to the country as a whole, to which has no counter argument to what I said in the first place. What does the price of rice in China have to do with French people being prejudice towards the Islamic Faith?
Also Gay Marriage effects the entire country, not only is Marriage a legal binding term relating to the state, but it also a bond that thousands of people commit to every year, its a little bit different than 60 people wearing religious garb on their head.
The thing is, cutting the animal's throat is relatively humane compared to some things that have been (and probably still are) being done by other meat industries/companies. I voted for animal welfare, but the poll is worded in a pretty biased manner. Really, I'm ok with them not stunning animals first, as it still seems to be a humane way to kill them.
On June 29 2011 09:24 MozzarellaL wrote: Preservation of the species. If saving the human instead of the cow will help keep the human species alive, and I have to pick one, I will kill the cow.
How is preservation of the species and preservation of the self unique to humans?
Might does not make right. Even the people who wrote the bible, with their Taliban morality, knew better than that.
But it does.
I don't think I want to argue with someone who hare a morality below that of those who are far below that of the Taliban. Really, the worst thing you can be is an immoral person. You just claimed to be part of the .0001% least moral people on the planet. Well done!
Humans are animals, yes. Religious dogma is just wrong here. They can claim we are divine and angel-like all they want. There is only one reality.
I would argue sentience and language are pretty big indicators that we aren't just 'animals'.
How much humans can suffer can be measured. But I don't see how our ability to communicate through language has any bearing on our right to cause unnecessary suffering.
I never claimed humans are not special. I just claimed it isn't obvious to say human suffering is more important than animal suffering when the suffering is equal.
But remember that the context was about how extremist religious people suffer by being offended by reality is more important that real animal suffering caused by slitting throats.
Replying in parts because there is so much wrong with this post.
On June 29 2011 08:46 Hekisui wrote: This is an extremely simple debate but loaded because of religious people who compare stuff with WWII.
It was decided that butchering should be done in the most animal friendly way. In the modern world we have ways to measure stress and pain and means to reduce it.
Therefore, it was banned to butcher without first making the animal go unconsciousness. Only when they were unable to feel pain, it was allowed to kill them.
In the Netherlands under the constitution, religious people have more rights than nonreligious people. Freedom of religion is very strong here and you can do things that are illegal otherwise if it us under the umbrella of religion. Freedom of speech is one thing. You can call for gay people to be killed as long as you can claim it is a religious view. If it is a religious view, you are protected. If not, it is illegal under other laws.
Yea, not true. Under Dutch law you would be prosecuted calling for violence against a group of people, even in the case of religious leaders and it has already happened for less (case of the imam in Rotterdam).
Same with schools. People can get money from the taxpayer to fund their own school if and only if the school is based on religious ideology. It's part of freedom of religion to get free money to have a religious school. Other ideologies can't get this money because religion is not like other ideologies. It has special rights.
Also not true. Schools of any kind can apply for funding from the dutch government, as long as certain criteria regarding quality are met. The various montessori- and 'free school' movements all have a place and they receive funding from the government.
Because of the special status of anything religious, it was still allowed to butcher without stunning as long as it was under the umbrella of freedom of religion. In the torah it states that an animal is only kosher if it can walk 4 paces after the throat is slit. If not, the animal is probably sick and not safe to eat. This is perfect fine stone age logic. Stone age logic no longer applies. But it is seen as religious dogma right now. Not following religious dogma is considered a sin. All completely silly.
If you ask me the religious people have an argument. What needs to happen is the constitution has to be changed. The constitution is what it is now because of the persecution of protestant Christians. Freedom of religion needs to be protected but it needs to put non religious people on an equal level with religious people. It doesn't do that because the text is archaic and obsolete. Not having a religion is currently not protected by the constitution. Non religious people are second class citizens. You can't start a Keynesian school. But you can start a Scientology school, using taxpayer money. When you claim Keynesian is a religion it suddenly gets special privileges and you can fund a Keynesian school.
If Keynesianism claims to be a religion then suddenly other constitutional rights are removed to allow for religious practices, if the religion of Keynesiamism demands for this.
Again, this is simply not true. You can freely create any kind of school you want, along any line of thought, as long as you meet certain criteria. Iederwijs is a perfect example of this.
Under the current constitution, children have no freedom of religion. Children are brainwashed by tax payer money in schools founded on this religion. No one protects their right of growing up without believing they can be of another religion than the religion of their parents.
This case just shows the freedom of religion needs to be entirely removed from the constitutional. Freedom of religion is already part of freedom of speech and expression. Religion as an ideology is just like any other ideology, be it economic, scientific, cultural, or whatever.
So yes, this new law does collide with the constitutional rights of religious people, and that's exactly the problem. It shouldn't.
If someone slits your throat when you are perfectly conscious, you will suffer. If you are unconscious and someone slits your throat, you will feel way less. The law says animals should be slaughtered only in the least painful way possible. So that bans halal and kosher slaughtering because in the bible or quran they didn't have anesthesia, obviously.
Your opinion. Can live with it.
Right now, Muslim people don't dare to say much. But jewish people are very vocal. They bring up Hitler and what he did and lie that if the throat of an animal is slit fast and skillfully enough, you can't feel it. Also, they bring in other issues about if eating animals should be moral even if you slaughter in the least painful way. Then these Jewish people threaten to go to terrorist state of Israel. I say, go. We don't need you in our modern society. Don't use the holocaust argument against us. Don't bring up that you were in a concentration camp.
Nobody is bringing up Hitler but you. It is true that in any debate involving jews there is a quick connection made to WWII, but nobody is making this case here or actually threatening to go to Israel. This ban doesn't mean anything, you will still be able to buy halal meat in every supermarket in Amsterdam. Are some of the more religious jews upset, sure, but it isn't exactly an uprising.
And you put it in a very hateful way.
So really religious people are lying and the animal rights party, who are vegetarians and want to abolish factory farming completely, just put their finger at a very sore point in our society.
On top of that, Islamic clerics claim that slaughtering an animal while it is unconscious is perfectly halal and a large percentage of halal meat in the Netherlands is already slaughtered that way.
When some religious group claims the only non sinful way to slaughter an animal is to throw it off the highest building in the country during working days at 4 PM, does not allowing that mean you are denying their right to have the religious ideology they choose to want? Really, if we give religious people special rights, were do we draw the line.
As for protection minorities especially, I am fully for that. Why? Because in a democracy, minorities are weak and have little power. Their rights need to be protected especially well. But animals are part of this group. Animals need to be protected. Greeks believed animals and rocks were the same thing. Now we know mammals suffer as much as humans and other animals are not far off. They are just less smart and their consciousness is at a way lower level.
So yea, again your opinion. Generally tho, I'd consider using less irrelevant facts.
On June 29 2011 07:50 smallerk wrote: Just knowing that 180 people think we should kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style, just because of religion. THAT SHIT MAKES ME SAD(and rage)
180 people believe in freedom.
180 people believe in the freedom to kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style just because of religion*
Humans > Animals
Therefore
Religious tradition > Animal life
Humans > Animals
Therefore
New England Patriots > Miami Dolphins
Interesting.. I possess the ability to write down logical fallacies as well
On June 29 2011 07:50 smallerk wrote: Just knowing that 180 people think we should kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style, just because of religion. THAT SHIT MAKES ME SAD(and rage)
180 people believe in freedom.
180 people believe in the freedom to kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style just because of religion*
Humans > Animals
Therefore
Religious tradition > Animal life
Humans > Animals
Therefore
New England Patriots > Miami Dolphins
Interesting.. I possess the ability to write down logical fallacies as well
It would be interesting, if my conclusion was a logical fallacy.
But to make it more specific, I could also say:
Humans > Animals
Therefore
Eternal Life of a human > Fleshly life of an animal
I could see that being used a moral argument for Muslims/Jews toward Halal/Kosher. However our laws aren't made by organized religion so a superstition about eternal life isn't a very compelling argument for a secularist.
On June 29 2011 07:50 smallerk wrote: Just knowing that 180 people think we should kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style, just because of religion. THAT SHIT MAKES ME SAD(and rage)
180 people believe in freedom.
180 people believe in the freedom to kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style just because of religion*
Humans > Animals
Therefore
Religious tradition > Animal life
Humans > Animals
Therefore
New England Patriots > Miami Dolphins
Interesting.. I possess the ability to write down logical fallacies as well
It would be interesting, if my conclusion was a logical fallacy.
But to make it more specific, I could also say:
Humans > Animals
Therefore
Eternal Life of a human > Fleshly life of an animal
I could see that being used a moral argument for Muslims/Jews toward Halal/Kosher. However our laws aren't made by organized religion so a superstition about eternal life isn't a very compelling argument for a secularist.
By the means of freedom of religion, the government is obligated to guarantee religious fulfillment to each and everyone of it's citizens.
On June 29 2011 07:50 smallerk wrote: Just knowing that 180 people think we should kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style, just because of religion. THAT SHIT MAKES ME SAD(and rage)
180 people believe in freedom.
180 people believe in the freedom to kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style just because of religion*
Humans > Animals
Therefore
Religious tradition > Animal life
Humans > Animals
Therefore
New England Patriots > Miami Dolphins
Interesting.. I possess the ability to write down logical fallacies as well
It would be interesting, if my conclusion was a logical fallacy.
But to make it more specific, I could also say:
Humans > Animals
Therefore
Eternal Life of a human > Fleshly life of an animal
I could see that being used a moral argument for Muslims/Jews toward Halal/Kosher. However our laws aren't made by organized religion so a superstition about eternal life isn't a very compelling argument for a secularist.
By the means of freedom of religion, the government is obligated to guarantee religious fulfillment to each and everyone of it's citizens.
Is that the law in your country? Because it's not the law in mine
On June 29 2011 09:32 Hekisui wrote: How is preservation of the species and preservation of the self unique to humans?
They aren't. You were asking for objective moral whatever to determine which is worth more, I gave that to you.
I don't think I want to argue with someone who hare a morality below that of those who are far below that of the Taliban. Really, the worst thing you can be is an immoral person. You just claimed to be part of the .0001% least moral people on the planet. Well done!
I have a very well defined set of morals, thanks!
How much humans can suffer can be measured. But I don't see how our ability to communicate through language has any bearing on our right to cause unnecessary suffering.
It shows we're the fucking kinds of this planet, and we get to do whatever we want to the lower beings of this planet, understand?
my opinion is that regardless of whether i think it is right or not, that is their religious belief, and i dont see anything wrong with them wanting to keep their beliefs, just as people respond and say that it shouldnt be allowed and being behind this law, you wanting them to lean towards your own beliefs. what if it was the other way around? and the majority of people wanted the jewish way and people wanted to put a law to only allow it.
point is, they kill their own food, they arent usually killing them by the 1000's they kill what they need or for some religious reason. almost all of north america doesnt even kill their own food or even plant it, they buy it from a grocery store. so instead of just jumping up and being right against it, maybe take a wider view of the whole thing and see that you yourself really have no experience or proper perspective on the whole matter.
This kind of thread always hurt my little heart. The human > animals make me want to puke on the keyboard of the guy who wrote this. I don't agree at all about this one; human = animals. We are different but not better.
You are comparing men and animals with men standards. Of course animals don't know mathematic, alphabet and stuff, but can you fly ? can breath underwater ? can you communicate with pheromones ? How well can you understand body language ? can you sense an entire place without looking at it ?
Animals are fantastic, if you doubt about it, maybe you didn't study them enough. I love every animals on this planet, my least favourite being the human.
On June 29 2011 07:50 smallerk wrote: Just knowing that 180 people think we should kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style, just because of religion. THAT SHIT MAKES ME SAD(and rage)
180 people believe in freedom.
180 people believe in the freedom to kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style just because of religion*
Humans > Animals
Therefore
Religious tradition > Animal life
Humans > Animals
Therefore
New England Patriots > Miami Dolphins
Interesting.. I possess the ability to write down logical fallacies as well
It would be interesting, if my conclusion was a logical fallacy.
But to make it more specific, I could also say:
Humans > Animals
Therefore
Eternal Life of a human > Fleshly life of an animal
I could see that being used a moral argument for Muslims/Jews toward Halal/Kosher. However our laws aren't made by organized religion so a superstition about eternal life isn't a very compelling argument for a secularist.
By the means of freedom of religion, the government is obligated to guarantee religious fulfillment to each and everyone of it's citizens.
That's absolutely false and you know it. Not only is it impossible to guarantee anything like that, it's thoroughly dangerous to entertain that as a policy. The freedom to practice your religion does not include any freedom to ignore the consequences of your actions. If any practice, religious or not, causes the undue suffering of unwilling participants, then no government will defend it. There are very few exceptions to this and they are only exceptions because they have existed longer than the states themselves. If you ask me they will all be banned in the next few decades but that's neither here nor there.
On June 29 2011 07:50 smallerk wrote: Just knowing that 180 people think we should kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style, just because of religion. THAT SHIT MAKES ME SAD(and rage)
180 people believe in freedom.
180 people believe in the freedom to kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style just because of religion*
Humans > Animals
Therefore
Religious tradition > Animal life
Humans > Animals
Therefore
New England Patriots > Miami Dolphins
Interesting.. I possess the ability to write down logical fallacies as well
It would be interesting, if my conclusion was a logical fallacy.
But to make it more specific, I could also say:
Humans > Animals
Therefore
Eternal Life of a human > Fleshly life of an animal
I could see that being used a moral argument for Muslims/Jews toward Halal/Kosher. However our laws aren't made by organized religion so a superstition about eternal life isn't a very compelling argument for a secularist.
By the means of freedom of religion, the government is obligated to guarantee religious fulfillment to each and everyone of it's citizens.
Let's pretend that my religion requires me to slaughter twenty Christians in my lifetime. Does the government have an obligation to help me in my quest? Who is the government to judge whether my religion is worthy of its consideration? Is it by sheer number? Because ten thousand people in the UK are registered as Jedis on the census.
Personally, I feel human religious rights > animal rights when dealing with law. But legislating morality has become the standard, look at the drug/prostitution laws. Even Mormons and Muslims who practice polygamy are hindered by laws that are based on christian morality even though it is interfering with their religious norms.
Isn't the intolerance for others view's the same reason you guys dislike religion? This comes off as hypocritical to me, Halal/Kosher butchering is designed to virtually eliminate suffering from the animal. I cannot understand why people believe its okay to insert morals from only one side of an issue.
The religions have no good reason to follow through on this, other than "lol tradition and religion." Animals not being tormented as they are being slaughtered is so far ahead of religious traditions in my book on the priority list that it's not even funny.
Screw the religious traditions.
Isn't the intolerance for others view's the same reason you guys dislike religion? This comes off as hypocritical to me, Halal/Kosher butchering is designed to virtually eliminate suffering from the animal. I cannot understand why people believe its okay to insert morals from only one side of an issue.
No, the major reason most people dislike religion is that it's idiotic, poisonous, has no logical reason for it whatsoever, and it gets in the way of human development and progress.
On June 29 2011 10:50 isM wrote: Isn't the intolerance for others view's the same reason you guys dislike religion? This comes off as hypocritical to me, Halal/Kosher butchering is designed to virtually eliminate suffering from the animal. I cannot understand why people believe its okay to insert morals from only one side of an issue.
That shows just how self-defeating this religious dogma is. If halal and kosher butchering were designed to eliminate animal suffering in a stone age time, then now when that practice is the most cruel one available and more modern alternatives are available, what is the problem? Why is self defeating religious dogma that actually does the opposite of what it is supposed to do more important than animal rights? If halal and kosher practices are so important and this is indeed the spirit behind them, why don't they change the dogma and the religious texts?
This is just the age old problem of religion. It is completely out of touch with reality. You are saying they are actually sinning against their imaginary god by sticking to the letter of their of the religious texts while accusing the rest of society, who are shocked and disgusted by their practices, that they are forced to sin against their imaginary god. And then there are the animals that suffer needlessly. Ridiculing the suffering of animals is no different that ridiculing the suffering of humans.
How many times can one be wrong on a single issue? I can't fathom how it is theoretically possible.
On June 29 2011 10:53 Whitewing wrote: The religions have no good reason to follow through on this, other than "lol tradition and religion." Animals not being tormented as they are being slaughtered is so far ahead of religious traditions in my book on the priority list that it's not even funny.
Isn't the intolerance for others view's the same reason you guys dislike religion? This comes off as hypocritical to me, Halal/Kosher butchering is designed to virtually eliminate suffering from the animal. I cannot understand why people believe its okay to insert morals from only one side of an issue.
No, the major reason most people dislike religion is that it's idiotic, poisonous, has no logical reason for it whatsoever, and it gets in the way of human development and progress.
Religion for most is just a guide to a fulfilled life. Yes some people take it to extremes but you take anything to extremes and you are equally idiotic, poisonous and illogical. You cannot assume the views of a select few are matched by the masses either or you are no better than what you are trying to fight against.
On June 28 2011 23:11 Vashalgrim wrote:And that law would seem to be prohibiting the free exercise of someone's religious belief. Does the Dutch constitution have a similar clause?
This may be shocking to you, but not all countries were founded by religious zealots fleeing persecution and hence do not provide the same protection for religious practices.
There's a good expose recently done by an Australian current affairs program on this issue. It raised a lot of ire in Australia and recently led to an export ban with Indonesia.
It's well worth a watch if you have the time. No specifically related to the issue of Halal, but looks more at the issue of live exports.
Neither. Where is the 3rd option. We are eating the Animal. If there is a heaven or hell it most likely won't remember this "pain" that happened during its life. Also, the rituals and practices of a religion have no effect on the actual animal in reality so that point is also moot.
The religious should not get any special treatment in regards to the law. They are free to exercise their right to freedom of religion but it does not make them immune to the law if their religion's teachings violate the law. The question in the op is what is worth more, their traditions or animal rights, and in this case it should be "What are their traditions worth in regards to the law?" The answer is nothing.
On June 28 2011 23:11 Vashalgrim wrote:And that law would seem to be prohibiting the free exercise of someone's religious belief. Does the Dutch constitution have a similar clause?
This may be shocking to you, but not all countries were founded by religious zealots fleeing persecution and hence do not provide the same protection for religious practices.
That is weird to me because I don't seem to remember the Pilgrims being the ones who wrote the United States Constitution, silly me.
Since it's at most a matter of miliseconds of pain we are talking about when cuting an animals, if it actually was a practice that was cruel to the animal there might have been a point in it, but it's not. Who says the panic the animal feels when being forced unconcious isn't worse?
And anyone that gets upset by this, you really don't want to know how the animals are treated before they go to slaughter, a knife in your neck is the least of your issue. No, not even your precious "We totally treat our meat right"-seal helps, there are cases every single day showing that the way to make profit is to treat your animals like garbage. Perhaps you should focus on fixing the 3 years of complete misery before you complain about miliseconds worth of pain -.-
And no I'm not religious in the slightest but it seems like as soon as people bring the subject up people lose their heads and any means of thinking rationally.
Religion and the thousand year old traditions that go with it have outlived there usefulness. Unethical practices or laws that stem from religion have no place in a modern world. And neither does religion for that matter.
I fail to see how the 2 are at conflict. I will explain. One culture honors animals by swift death, another by reducing an animal into unconsciousness. To say that either is unconcerned with their animals welfare seems strangely ignorant. Respect is definitely shown within culture and not apart from culture. In both mentioned case studies the animal is killed in such a way that the animal does not consciously experience pain. As to fear, it is a Jewish (middle eastern?) idiom, "like a lamb to the slaughter," expressing the animals lack of fear and awareness.
The word welfare generally implies keeping something healthy and prosperous.
1. the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc., of a person, group, or organization; well-being: to look after a child's welfare; the physical or moral welfare of society. 2. welfare work. 3. financial or other assistance to an individual or family from a city, state, or national government: Thousands of jobless people in this city would starve if it weren't for welfare.
Since the definition of welfare in the above stated OP says that the law is to minimize pain and fear, and both practices are culturally appropriate ways to accomplish this, it seems likely that the people passing this law have cultural motivation rather than the animals welfare in mind. It is understandable that they would word things in such a way as to make the opposition sound like heartless torturers because this is what politicians do in order to move masses of people to emotional positions that are unassailable through use of logical argumentation.
They are certainly effective. 73% of people voting on TL (to this point) consider this issue to actually revolve around animal welfare. It actually revolves around human opinion about animal welfare, and the deciding factor is not the animal's feelings, but instead the cultural background and ways of expressing the values of the separate human groups.
Part of participating in a global community like TL is learning to both understand and appreciate the ways that other people think and express value. This isn't true on just the global level. It is very true within interpersonal relationships. It is also very true between separate families. Last but not least for all young aspiring daters of women, it is extremely important when interacting with the opposite sex. If you want your GF to value SC2 like Tyler's wife does, and not only that but value you as a SC2 player like Tyler's wife and my own wife do, then you need to learn how to value other people's value system and demonstrate it so that your future spouse and others can learn from your positive example.
After reading the first couple of lines i think you should all know, even when the animal is stunned they still cut its throat afterwards. However, the whole stun process is to make sure it doesn't feel it and it is killed as soon as possible after being stunned to make sure it doesn't get any sense of feeling back before it is dead.
They wait for the animal to bleed out, and to some people who watch on TV it looks like they are mistreating it because it squeals and moves after its throat has been cut but this is just simply its muscles reacting to the shock and lungs expelling any excess air after death.
So to sum up, standard animal slaughter works because of the stun. Without it, animals would suffer and feel the pain of their throats being cut. Religious slaughter takes out all thoughts for animal welfare, put them to the side and put their "religious" beliefs before it. If you ask me, this should be illegal. Just a thought but couldnt this be used for illegal purposes to produce cheap meat?
Also for the poster above me the two processes are exactly the same except one doesn't include the process of stunning 30 seconds before it dies to remove any kind of pain it might suffer. From the second the paddles are put to the side of the animals head, they can't feel a thing. Then 30 seconds later their main arteries are cut to make sure it bleeds out as fast as possible.
On June 29 2011 10:53 Whitewing wrote: The religions have no good reason to follow through on this, other than "lol tradition and religion." Animals not being tormented as they are being slaughtered is so far ahead of religious traditions in my book on the priority list that it's not even funny.
Screw the religious traditions.
Isn't the intolerance for others view's the same reason you guys dislike religion? This comes off as hypocritical to me, Halal/Kosher butchering is designed to virtually eliminate suffering from the animal. I cannot understand why people believe its okay to insert morals from only one side of an issue.
No, the major reason most people dislike religion is that it's idiotic, poisonous, has no logical reason for it whatsoever, and it gets in the way of human development and progress.
Religion for most is just a guide to a fulfilled life. Yes some people take it to extremes but you take anything to extremes and you are equally idiotic, poisonous and illogical. You cannot assume the views of a select few are matched by the masses either or you are no better than what you are trying to fight against.
No, what I mean is, all religion, regardless of how extreme or inoffensive it might be, is idiotic. It's dumb to believe in something and base real life decisions on that belief when there is absolutely zero evidence to support that belief.
On June 29 2011 10:53 Whitewing wrote: The religions have no good reason to follow through on this, other than "lol tradition and religion." Animals not being tormented as they are being slaughtered is so far ahead of religious traditions in my book on the priority list that it's not even funny.
Screw the religious traditions.
Isn't the intolerance for others view's the same reason you guys dislike religion? This comes off as hypocritical to me, Halal/Kosher butchering is designed to virtually eliminate suffering from the animal. I cannot understand why people believe its okay to insert morals from only one side of an issue.
No, the major reason most people dislike religion is that it's idiotic, poisonous, has no logical reason for it whatsoever, and it gets in the way of human development and progress.
Religion for most is just a guide to a fulfilled life. Yes some people take it to extremes but you take anything to extremes and you are equally idiotic, poisonous and illogical. You cannot assume the views of a select few are matched by the masses either or you are no better than what you are trying to fight against.
No, what I mean is, all religion, regardless of how extreme or inoffensive it might be, is idiotic. It's dumb to believe in something and base real life decisions on that belief when there is absolutely zero evidence to support that belief.
You have zero reason to believe that living is "more good" than not living, and yet here you stand. Think of all the damage you're causing to the environment by existing! All that coal and oil you consume, and the trees you cut down to build your home, and the land you occupy that could be occupied by anything else. Unless, you don't value nature over yourself, of course. But you have no reason to value anything over anything else, so why would you?
What idiots indeed, having values that are consistent with their belief system.
As for animals, I don't think how an imprisoned person dies determines whether or not they are treated humanely. I think it depends on how they lived. Firing squads and hangings are bad, but not as horrible as the prison system they used back then. Thankfully, we have improved upon that.
So if halal or kosher meat manufacturers treat their animals with an ounce more respect during the raising of the animals (like allowing them to walk outside and graze) then I would think that they are better than the horrible system we have for animal treatment.
On June 29 2011 10:53 Whitewing wrote: The religions have no good reason to follow through on this, other than "lol tradition and religion." Animals not being tormented as they are being slaughtered is so far ahead of religious traditions in my book on the priority list that it's not even funny.
Screw the religious traditions.
Isn't the intolerance for others view's the same reason you guys dislike religion? This comes off as hypocritical to me, Halal/Kosher butchering is designed to virtually eliminate suffering from the animal. I cannot understand why people believe its okay to insert morals from only one side of an issue.
No, the major reason most people dislike religion is that it's idiotic, poisonous, has no logical reason for it whatsoever, and it gets in the way of human development and progress.
Religion for most is just a guide to a fulfilled life. Yes some people take it to extremes but you take anything to extremes and you are equally idiotic, poisonous and illogical. You cannot assume the views of a select few are matched by the masses either or you are no better than what you are trying to fight against.
No, what I mean is, all religion, regardless of how extreme or inoffensive it might be, is idiotic. It's dumb to believe in something and base real life decisions on that belief when there is absolutely zero evidence to support that belief.
You have zero reason to believe that living is "more good" than not living, and yet here you stand. Think of all the damage you're causing to the environment by existing! All that coal and oil you consume, and the trees you cut down to build your home, and the land you occupy that could be occupied by anything else. Unless, you don't value nature over yourself, of course. But you have no reason to value anything over anything else, so why would you?
What idiots indeed, having values that are consistent with their belief system.
Are you serious? no reason to think that being alive is better than being dead? As far as science goes being dead = game over and I don't think the vast majority of people want that.
On June 29 2011 11:49 KhaosKreator wrote:You have zero reason to believe that living is "more good" than not living, and yet here you stand. Think of all the damage you're causing to the environment by existing! All that coal and oil you consume, and the trees you cut down to build your home, and the land you occupy that could be occupied by anything else. Unless, you don't value nature over yourself, of course. But you have no reason to value anything over anything else, so why would you?
What idiots indeed, having values that are consistent with their belief system.
If you believe that there is no possible meaning to life outside of religion, this says far more about you than it does about atheism.
On June 29 2011 10:53 Whitewing wrote: The religions have no good reason to follow through on this, other than "lol tradition and religion." Animals not being tormented as they are being slaughtered is so far ahead of religious traditions in my book on the priority list that it's not even funny.
Screw the religious traditions.
Isn't the intolerance for others view's the same reason you guys dislike religion? This comes off as hypocritical to me, Halal/Kosher butchering is designed to virtually eliminate suffering from the animal. I cannot understand why people believe its okay to insert morals from only one side of an issue.
No, the major reason most people dislike religion is that it's idiotic, poisonous, has no logical reason for it whatsoever, and it gets in the way of human development and progress.
Religion for most is just a guide to a fulfilled life. Yes some people take it to extremes but you take anything to extremes and you are equally idiotic, poisonous and illogical. You cannot assume the views of a select few are matched by the masses either or you are no better than what you are trying to fight against.
No, what I mean is, all religion, regardless of how extreme or inoffensive it might be, is idiotic. It's dumb to believe in something and base real life decisions on that belief when there is absolutely zero evidence to support that belief.
You have zero reason to believe that living is "more good" than not living, and yet here you stand. Think of all the damage you're causing to the environment by existing! All that coal and oil you consume, and the trees you cut down to build your home, and the land you occupy that could be occupied by anything else. Unless, you don't value nature over yourself, of course. But you have no reason to value anything over anything else, so why would you?
What idiots indeed, having values that are consistent with their belief system.
On June 29 2011 10:53 Whitewing wrote: The religions have no good reason to follow through on this, other than "lol tradition and religion." Animals not being tormented as they are being slaughtered is so far ahead of religious traditions in my book on the priority list that it's not even funny.
Screw the religious traditions.
Isn't the intolerance for others view's the same reason you guys dislike religion? This comes off as hypocritical to me, Halal/Kosher butchering is designed to virtually eliminate suffering from the animal. I cannot understand why people believe its okay to insert morals from only one side of an issue.
No, the major reason most people dislike religion is that it's idiotic, poisonous, has no logical reason for it whatsoever, and it gets in the way of human development and progress.
Religion for most is just a guide to a fulfilled life. Yes some people take it to extremes but you take anything to extremes and you are equally idiotic, poisonous and illogical. You cannot assume the views of a select few are matched by the masses either or you are no better than what you are trying to fight against.
No, what I mean is, all religion, regardless of how extreme or inoffensive it might be, is idiotic. It's dumb to believe in something and base real life decisions on that belief when there is absolutely zero evidence to support that belief.
You have zero reason to believe that living is "more good" than not living, and yet here you stand. Think of all the damage you're causing to the environment by existing! All that coal and oil you consume, and the trees you cut down to build your home, and the land you occupy that could be occupied by anything else. Unless, you don't value nature over yourself, of course. But you have no reason to value anything over anything else, so why would you?
What idiots indeed, having values that are consistent with their belief system.
Are you serious? no reason to think that being alive is better than being dead? As far as science goes being dead = game over and I don't think the vast majority of people want that.
It's true that people don't want that! But science unfortunately doesn't care either way.
My point is that you can't apply "logic and science" to basic things like values. Your values have no logical basis. They wouldn't be values then, they would be facts.
On June 29 2011 11:58 KhaosKreator wrote:My point is that you can't apply "logic and science" to basic things like values. Your values have no logical basis. They wouldn't be values then, they would be facts.
Fact: Given that you value life, it is good to eat things to extend your life. Fact: Given that you don't value life, eating is not a required action. Not Fact: People should value life.
Anyway, this is all off topic. I apologize for talking about values and beliefs, I was just upset by the offensive and moronic statements made by that previous poster.
On June 29 2011 10:53 Whitewing wrote: The religions have no good reason to follow through on this, other than "lol tradition and religion." Animals not being tormented as they are being slaughtered is so far ahead of religious traditions in my book on the priority list that it's not even funny.
Screw the religious traditions.
Isn't the intolerance for others view's the same reason you guys dislike religion? This comes off as hypocritical to me, Halal/Kosher butchering is designed to virtually eliminate suffering from the animal. I cannot understand why people believe its okay to insert morals from only one side of an issue.
No, the major reason most people dislike religion is that it's idiotic, poisonous, has no logical reason for it whatsoever, and it gets in the way of human development and progress.
Religion for most is just a guide to a fulfilled life. Yes some people take it to extremes but you take anything to extremes and you are equally idiotic, poisonous and illogical. You cannot assume the views of a select few are matched by the masses either or you are no better than what you are trying to fight against.
No, what I mean is, all religion, regardless of how extreme or inoffensive it might be, is idiotic. It's dumb to believe in something and base real life decisions on that belief when there is absolutely zero evidence to support that belief.
You have zero reason to believe that living is "more good" than not living, and yet here you stand. Think of all the damage you're causing to the environment by existing! All that coal and oil you consume, and the trees you cut down to build your home, and the land you occupy that could be occupied by anything else. Unless, you don't value nature over yourself, of course. But you have no reason to value anything over anything else, so why would you?
What idiots indeed, having values that are consistent with their belief system.
Are you serious? no reason to think that being alive is better than being dead? As far as science goes being dead = game over and I don't think the vast majority of people want that.
It's true that people don't want that! But science unfortunately doesn't care either way.
My point is that you can't apply "logic and science" to basic things like values. Your values have no logical basis. They wouldn't be values then, they would be facts.
I apply logic and science in my values all the time it helps me out when things like emotion get in the way.
Can't speak up for Jewish people there, but in Turkey we do stun animals (or at least allowed to stun animals, some prefer not to which I find quite stupid) before we kill them for religious purposes, can't see why Muslim people there would actually create a problem out of this.
Religious beliefs and traditions should be considered irrelevant in a discussion like this. It's the law, and religion is no excuse for any exceptions to it.
On June 29 2011 12:12 2l84that wrote: Can't speak up for Jewish people there, but in Turkey we do stun animals (or at least allowed to stun animals, some prefer not to which I find quite stupid) before we kill them for religious purposes, can't see why Muslim people there would actually create a problem out of this.
This happens with all religious groups, any time that something is open for interpretation from their religious text, they seem to interpret it as the opposite of what the government/law/outsiders view. I swear it seems like religions enjoy being controversial and bringing negative views towards them so they can play the victim.
my honest-to-god actual opinion: i think animals are just super complicated computers, so in reality i don't care either way.
fuck animals
Was it your religion that blessed you with such insightful moral standards?
Sadly no, the religion that was taught to me taught me to respect and value the life of an animal. Now I only value animals in so far as it effects human begins.
Was it your lack of religion that taught you it was okay to kill other living beings because they aren't as smart as us?
my honest-to-god actual opinion: i think animals are just super complicated computers, so in reality i don't care either way.
fuck animals
Was it your religion that blessed you with such insightful moral standards?
Sadly no, the religion that was taught to me taught me to respect and value the life of an animal. Now I only value animals in so far as it effects human begins.
Was it your lack of religion that taught you it was okay to kill other living beings because they aren't as smart as us?
Now you are just assuming, I am a vegetarian... By your last reply is it not you who thinks living beings don't matter because they are not as smart as us?
"I think animals are just super complicated computers, so in reality i don't care either way. fuck animals"
I think this is a stab at religion in general, because if they cared about animal welfare than more laws would be put in place handling farms where all varieties of meat are raised. I'm not sure if all of Europe corn feeds, but where animals are fed corn, conditions are terrible.
my honest-to-god actual opinion: i think animals are just super complicated computers, so in reality i don't care either way.
fuck animals
Was it your religion that blessed you with such insightful moral standards?
Sadly no, the religion that was taught to me taught me to respect and value the life of an animal. Now I only value animals in so far as it effects human begins.
Was it your lack of religion that taught you it was okay to kill other living beings because they aren't as smart as us?
Now you are just assuming, I am a vegetarian... By your last reply is it not you who thinks living beings don't matter because they are not as smart as us?
"I think animals are just super complicated computers, so in reality i don't care either way. fuck animals"
Lol?
If you're a vegetarian and not a vegan, my point is still valid.
You're taking advantage of poor, stupid, defenseless animals for your own personal gain.
On June 29 2011 12:21 LMPeaches wrote: I think this is a stab at religion in general, because if they cared about animal welfare than more laws would be put in place handling farms where all varieties of meat are raised. I'm not sure if all of Europe corn feeds, but where animals are fed corn, conditions are terrible.
Yep. Like I said, living conditions are what determine humane conditions.
If you torture me for 20 years and then give me the lethal injection, that's not better than letting me live life in a comfortable situation for 20 years and then killing me by slitting my throat.
On June 29 2011 12:26 KhaosKreator wrote: If you're a vegetarian and not a vegan, my point is still valid.
You're taking advantage of poor, stupid, defenseless animals for your own personal gain.
You monster.
This subject surely brings out both the idiots and the openly immoral people. But why are they so often one and the same?
On June 29 2011 12:21 LMPeaches wrote: I think this is a stab at religion in general, because if they cared about animal welfare than more laws would be put in place handling farms where all varieties of meat are raised. I'm not sure if all of Europe corn feeds, but where animals are fed corn, conditions are terrible.
Then why did they make an exception for religion and only religion in the first place?
PvdD is a party lead by a strongly christian animal activist. They animal activism is unusual logical when it comes to animal activists. Really surprising.
Only thing you can say is that the VVD, who recently have become a party that is both anti Muslim and anti science, takes a less pro Jewish position then they usually would just to be anti Muslim. But that's about it.
Also, not slaughtering without stunning is not allowed in most countries in Europe. The Netherlands was the exception because there is such a pro religious freedom tradition here even among stanch atheists.
my honest-to-god actual opinion: i think animals are just super complicated computers, so in reality i don't care either way.
fuck animals
Was it your religion that blessed you with such insightful moral standards?
Sadly no, the religion that was taught to me taught me to respect and value the life of an animal. Now I only value animals in so far as it effects human begins.
Was it your lack of religion that taught you it was okay to kill other living beings because they aren't as smart as us?
Now you are just assuming, I am a vegetarian... By your last reply is it not you who thinks living beings don't matter because they are not as smart as us?
"I think animals are just super complicated computers, so in reality i don't care either way. fuck animals"
Lol?
If you're a vegetarian and not a vegan, my point is still valid.
You're taking advantage of poor, stupid, defenseless animals for your own personal gain.
You monster.
Not quite, you said kill not take advantage of, your point actually is not valid. Don't you get embarrassed by some of the things you have said so far? I know its the internet, but still...
my honest-to-god actual opinion: i think animals are just super complicated computers, so in reality i don't care either way.
fuck animals
Was it your religion that blessed you with such insightful moral standards?
Sadly no, the religion that was taught to me taught me to respect and value the life of an animal. Now I only value animals in so far as it effects human begins.
Was it your lack of religion that taught you it was okay to kill other living beings because they aren't as smart as us?
Now you are just assuming, I am a vegetarian... By your last reply is it not you who thinks living beings don't matter because they are not as smart as us?
"I think animals are just super complicated computers, so in reality i don't care either way. fuck animals"
Lol?
If you're a vegetarian and not a vegan, my point is still valid.
You're taking advantage of poor, stupid, defenseless animals for your own personal gain.
You monster.
Not quite, you said kill not take advantage of, your point actually is not valid. Don't you get embarrassed by some of the things you have said so far? I know its the internet, but still...
Do you know what the dairy industry does with cows when they stop producing milk?
my honest-to-god actual opinion: i think animals are just super complicated computers, so in reality i don't care either way.
fuck animals
Was it your religion that blessed you with such insightful moral standards?
Sadly no, the religion that was taught to me taught me to respect and value the life of an animal. Now I only value animals in so far as it effects human begins.
Was it your lack of religion that taught you it was okay to kill other living beings because they aren't as smart as us?
my honest-to-god actual opinion: i think animals are just super complicated computers, so in reality i don't care either way.
fuck animals
Was it your religion that blessed you with such insightful moral standards?
Sadly no, the religion that was taught to me taught me to respect and value the life of an animal. Now I only value animals in so far as it effects human begins.
Was it your lack of religion that taught you it was okay to kill other living beings because they aren't as smart as us?
Do computers feel pain you sick fuck?
How is killing an animal to eat being sick? are u a vegan or something?
On June 29 2011 10:53 Whitewing wrote: The religions have no good reason to follow through on this, other than "lol tradition and religion." Animals not being tormented as they are being slaughtered is so far ahead of religious traditions in my book on the priority list that it's not even funny.
Screw the religious traditions.
Isn't the intolerance for others view's the same reason you guys dislike religion? This comes off as hypocritical to me, Halal/Kosher butchering is designed to virtually eliminate suffering from the animal. I cannot understand why people believe its okay to insert morals from only one side of an issue.
No, the major reason most people dislike religion is that it's idiotic, poisonous, has no logical reason for it whatsoever, and it gets in the way of human development and progress.
Religion for most is just a guide to a fulfilled life. Yes some people take it to extremes but you take anything to extremes and you are equally idiotic, poisonous and illogical. You cannot assume the views of a select few are matched by the masses either or you are no better than what you are trying to fight against.
No, what I mean is, all religion, regardless of how extreme or inoffensive it might be, is idiotic. It's dumb to believe in something and base real life decisions on that belief when there is absolutely zero evidence to support that belief.
You have zero reason to believe that living is "more good" than not living, and yet here you stand. Think of all the damage you're causing to the environment by existing! All that coal and oil you consume, and the trees you cut down to build your home, and the land you occupy that could be occupied by anything else. Unless, you don't value nature over yourself, of course. But you have no reason to value anything over anything else, so why would you?
What idiots indeed, having values that are consistent with their belief system.
Are you serious? no reason to think that being alive is better than being dead? As far as science goes being dead = game over and I don't think the vast majority of people want that.
It's true that people don't want that! But science unfortunately doesn't care either way.
My point is that you can't apply "logic and science" to basic things like values. Your values have no logical basis. They wouldn't be values then, they would be facts.
Yes, you can, and yes, I do. All the time. You do to, at least to some degree, everyone does. It's just a question of degree, and how many of their values are determined this way. The fact that you actually think this way shows you have no understanding of what logic, reason, and science actually are, and don't understand what a value is.
I shall enlighten you:
A value is something that you hold to have worth, merit, and importance. Since your values are based in some form of reasoning on your part, the obvious question is why you hold those things as valuable to you. On the one hand, we have made up ideas like religion, and on the other we have actual scientific reasoning and logical conclusions based on reasonable arguments constructed from facts and evidence.
In other words, values should be derived from facts, data, and evidence. If they aren't, you have absolutely no good reason to hold those values.
Everyone has some logic or reasoning behind some of their values at the least, even if they aren't consciously aware of it. But all values should be based on this, not just some.
Since the religious traditions of any group have no basis in fact, data, or evidence, there is no good reason to hold those values, meaning respecting them is pointless and potentially harmful. So yeah, put the animals to sleep before you butcher them.
On June 29 2011 10:53 Whitewing wrote: The religions have no good reason to follow through on this, other than "lol tradition and religion." Animals not being tormented as they are being slaughtered is so far ahead of religious traditions in my book on the priority list that it's not even funny.
Screw the religious traditions.
Isn't the intolerance for others view's the same reason you guys dislike religion? This comes off as hypocritical to me, Halal/Kosher butchering is designed to virtually eliminate suffering from the animal. I cannot understand why people believe its okay to insert morals from only one side of an issue.
No, the major reason most people dislike religion is that it's idiotic, poisonous, has no logical reason for it whatsoever, and it gets in the way of human development and progress.
Religion for most is just a guide to a fulfilled life. Yes some people take it to extremes but you take anything to extremes and you are equally idiotic, poisonous and illogical. You cannot assume the views of a select few are matched by the masses either or you are no better than what you are trying to fight against.
No, what I mean is, all religion, regardless of how extreme or inoffensive it might be, is idiotic. It's dumb to believe in something and base real life decisions on that belief when there is absolutely zero evidence to support that belief.
You have zero reason to believe that living is "more good" than not living, and yet here you stand. Think of all the damage you're causing to the environment by existing! All that coal and oil you consume, and the trees you cut down to build your home, and the land you occupy that could be occupied by anything else. Unless, you don't value nature over yourself, of course. But you have no reason to value anything over anything else, so why would you?
What idiots indeed, having values that are consistent with their belief system.
Are you serious? no reason to think that being alive is better than being dead? As far as science goes being dead = game over and I don't think the vast majority of people want that.
It's true that people don't want that! But science unfortunately doesn't care either way.
My point is that you can't apply "logic and science" to basic things like values. Your values have no logical basis. They wouldn't be values then, they would be facts.
Yes, you can, and yes, I do. All the time. The fact that you actually think this way shows you have no understanding of what logic, reason, and science actually are, and don't understand what a value is.
I shall enlighten you:
A value is something that you hold to have worth, merit, and importance. Since your values are based in some form of reasoning on your part, the obvious question is why you hold those things as valuable to you. On the one hand, we have made up ideas like religion, and on the other we have actual scientific reasoning and logical conclusions based on reasonable arguments constructed from facts and evidence.
In other words, values should be derived from facts, data, and evidence. If they aren't, you have absolutely no good reason to hold those values.
Since the religious traditions of any group have no basis in fact, data, or evidence, there is no good reason to hold those values, meaning respecting them is pointless and potentially harmful. So yeah, put the animals to sleep before you butcher them.
Your logic leaded us to colonization, slavery and genocide. Please think before talking about disrespecting traditions and religions of other people because it doesn't fit your point of view.
If animals are going to be slaughtered for us to eat. I believe it should be done in the most humaine way possible to minimise pain and suffering to the animal. Sure killing animals is bad because you're killing a living creature but their meat provides us with sustinance that we need, so the slaughter of animals is needed if we are to be as healthy and develop as we can/should be.
If we are going to slaughter animals as required for our dietary needs, it should be done the best way possible. Just beacuse someone will only eat meat because of the way it's slaughtered is silly. I will eat meat regardless of how it is killed but in theory we should avoid all of the bad ways and only do the best way possible. It's the right thing to do.
You could argue that I can't make a statement that stunning animals before slaughter is the right way to do it. If there are any other ways or the halall way is the most viable that cause less pain we should adopt them only.
In the debate of how animals are slaughtered. The most humaine way should be the only way. All other ways are worse and should be avoided regardless of peoples feelings. The animals feelings are all that matter. They're the ones that are being killed because meat on a plate is exactly the same regardless of the slaughter process. The debate should be what is the best way to slaughter animals, find it out and then put it into practice.
On June 29 2011 10:53 Whitewing wrote: The religions have no good reason to follow through on this, other than "lol tradition and religion." Animals not being tormented as they are being slaughtered is so far ahead of religious traditions in my book on the priority list that it's not even funny.
Screw the religious traditions.
Isn't the intolerance for others view's the same reason you guys dislike religion? This comes off as hypocritical to me, Halal/Kosher butchering is designed to virtually eliminate suffering from the animal. I cannot understand why people believe its okay to insert morals from only one side of an issue.
No, the major reason most people dislike religion is that it's idiotic, poisonous, has no logical reason for it whatsoever, and it gets in the way of human development and progress.
Religion for most is just a guide to a fulfilled life. Yes some people take it to extremes but you take anything to extremes and you are equally idiotic, poisonous and illogical. You cannot assume the views of a select few are matched by the masses either or you are no better than what you are trying to fight against.
No, what I mean is, all religion, regardless of how extreme or inoffensive it might be, is idiotic. It's dumb to believe in something and base real life decisions on that belief when there is absolutely zero evidence to support that belief.
You have zero reason to believe that living is "more good" than not living, and yet here you stand. Think of all the damage you're causing to the environment by existing! All that coal and oil you consume, and the trees you cut down to build your home, and the land you occupy that could be occupied by anything else. Unless, you don't value nature over yourself, of course. But you have no reason to value anything over anything else, so why would you?
What idiots indeed, having values that are consistent with their belief system.
Are you serious? no reason to think that being alive is better than being dead? As far as science goes being dead = game over and I don't think the vast majority of people want that.
It's true that people don't want that! But science unfortunately doesn't care either way.
My point is that you can't apply "logic and science" to basic things like values. Your values have no logical basis. They wouldn't be values then, they would be facts.
Yes, you can, and yes, I do. All the time. The fact that you actually think this way shows you have no understanding of what logic, reason, and science actually are, and don't understand what a value is.
I shall enlighten you:
A value is something that you hold to have worth, merit, and importance. Since your values are based in some form of reasoning on your part, the obvious question is why you hold those things as valuable to you. On the one hand, we have made up ideas like religion, and on the other we have actual scientific reasoning and logical conclusions based on reasonable arguments constructed from facts and evidence.
In other words, values should be derived from facts, data, and evidence. If they aren't, you have absolutely no good reason to hold those values.
Since the religious traditions of any group have no basis in fact, data, or evidence, there is no good reason to hold those values, meaning respecting them is pointless and potentially harmful. So yeah, put the animals to sleep before you butcher them.
Your logic leaded us to colonization, slavery and genocide. Please think before talking about traditions and religion.
You just jumped to a completely invalid conclusion, which is a poor use of logic. I never said using logic poorly was better than religion, I just said religion is bad. Further, the people responsible for slavery and genocide had no interest in doing the right thing or making the best decisions when determining their values.
The statement "Religious values are bad because there have no good reasons to support those values" is not logically equivalent to "Evil cannot happen if religion is gone." I have no idea how you managed to make that jump.
Of course it's possible for people to make bad decisions and do wrong and evil things, or hold no decent values without religion. What's your point? It is possible for non-religious things to be bad too, I never said ONLY religion is bad. People are capable of doing evil deeds with and without religion. The important thing, is that when you are trying to do the right thing (which the events you describe were not, although what's wrong with the idea of colonization? Some turned out badly, but there's nothing wrong with the concept itself), that you do it for good reasons, or else you might easily wind up doing the wrong thing.
On June 29 2011 10:53 Whitewing wrote: The religions have no good reason to follow through on this, other than "lol tradition and religion." Animals not being tormented as they are being slaughtered is so far ahead of religious traditions in my book on the priority list that it's not even funny.
Screw the religious traditions.
Isn't the intolerance for others view's the same reason you guys dislike religion? This comes off as hypocritical to me, Halal/Kosher butchering is designed to virtually eliminate suffering from the animal. I cannot understand why people believe its okay to insert morals from only one side of an issue.
No, the major reason most people dislike religion is that it's idiotic, poisonous, has no logical reason for it whatsoever, and it gets in the way of human development and progress.
Religion for most is just a guide to a fulfilled life. Yes some people take it to extremes but you take anything to extremes and you are equally idiotic, poisonous and illogical. You cannot assume the views of a select few are matched by the masses either or you are no better than what you are trying to fight against.
No, what I mean is, all religion, regardless of how extreme or inoffensive it might be, is idiotic. It's dumb to believe in something and base real life decisions on that belief when there is absolutely zero evidence to support that belief.
You have zero reason to believe that living is "more good" than not living, and yet here you stand. Think of all the damage you're causing to the environment by existing! All that coal and oil you consume, and the trees you cut down to build your home, and the land you occupy that could be occupied by anything else. Unless, you don't value nature over yourself, of course. But you have no reason to value anything over anything else, so why would you?
What idiots indeed, having values that are consistent with their belief system.
Are you serious? no reason to think that being alive is better than being dead? As far as science goes being dead = game over and I don't think the vast majority of people want that.
It's true that people don't want that! But science unfortunately doesn't care either way.
My point is that you can't apply "logic and science" to basic things like values. Your values have no logical basis. They wouldn't be values then, they would be facts.
Yes, you can, and yes, I do. All the time. The fact that you actually think this way shows you have no understanding of what logic, reason, and science actually are, and don't understand what a value is.
I shall enlighten you:
A value is something that you hold to have worth, merit, and importance. Since your values are based in some form of reasoning on your part, the obvious question is why you hold those things as valuable to you. On the one hand, we have made up ideas like religion, and on the other we have actual scientific reasoning and logical conclusions based on reasonable arguments constructed from facts and evidence.
In other words, values should be derived from facts, data, and evidence. If they aren't, you have absolutely no good reason to hold those values.
Since the religious traditions of any group have no basis in fact, data, or evidence, there is no good reason to hold those values, meaning respecting them is pointless and potentially harmful. So yeah, put the animals to sleep before you butcher them.
Your logic leaded us to colonization, slavery and genocide. Please think before talking about traditions and religion.
You just jumped to a completely invalid conclusion, which is a poor use of logic. I never said using logic poorly was better than religion, I just said religion is bad.
Of course it's possible for people to make bad decisions and do wrong and evil things, or hold no decent values without religion. What's your point? It is possible for non-religious things to be bad too, I never said ONLY religion is bad. People are capable of doing evil deeds with and without religion. The important thing, is that when you are trying to do the right thing (which the events you describe were not, although what's wrong with the idea of colonization? Some turned out badly, but there's nothing wrong with the concept itself), that you do it for good reasons, or else you might easily wind up doing the wrong thing.
Read, think, then post.
You said we shouldn't respect traditions and religion of other people because of science, evidence, bla bla bla. Do you know why Europeans countries did colonize Africa, India, etc. Because they weren't respecting other cultures, other traditions and other religions, for them it was dumb people with dumb culture, and white people were going to learn them how to think and how to live. And you think exactly like this people.
On June 29 2011 10:53 Whitewing wrote: The religions have no good reason to follow through on this, other than "lol tradition and religion." Animals not being tormented as they are being slaughtered is so far ahead of religious traditions in my book on the priority list that it's not even funny.
Screw the religious traditions.
[quote]
No, the major reason most people dislike religion is that it's idiotic, poisonous, has no logical reason for it whatsoever, and it gets in the way of human development and progress.
Religion for most is just a guide to a fulfilled life. Yes some people take it to extremes but you take anything to extremes and you are equally idiotic, poisonous and illogical. You cannot assume the views of a select few are matched by the masses either or you are no better than what you are trying to fight against.
No, what I mean is, all religion, regardless of how extreme or inoffensive it might be, is idiotic. It's dumb to believe in something and base real life decisions on that belief when there is absolutely zero evidence to support that belief.
You have zero reason to believe that living is "more good" than not living, and yet here you stand. Think of all the damage you're causing to the environment by existing! All that coal and oil you consume, and the trees you cut down to build your home, and the land you occupy that could be occupied by anything else. Unless, you don't value nature over yourself, of course. But you have no reason to value anything over anything else, so why would you?
What idiots indeed, having values that are consistent with their belief system.
Are you serious? no reason to think that being alive is better than being dead? As far as science goes being dead = game over and I don't think the vast majority of people want that.
It's true that people don't want that! But science unfortunately doesn't care either way.
My point is that you can't apply "logic and science" to basic things like values. Your values have no logical basis. They wouldn't be values then, they would be facts.
Yes, you can, and yes, I do. All the time. The fact that you actually think this way shows you have no understanding of what logic, reason, and science actually are, and don't understand what a value is.
I shall enlighten you:
A value is something that you hold to have worth, merit, and importance. Since your values are based in some form of reasoning on your part, the obvious question is why you hold those things as valuable to you. On the one hand, we have made up ideas like religion, and on the other we have actual scientific reasoning and logical conclusions based on reasonable arguments constructed from facts and evidence.
In other words, values should be derived from facts, data, and evidence. If they aren't, you have absolutely no good reason to hold those values.
Since the religious traditions of any group have no basis in fact, data, or evidence, there is no good reason to hold those values, meaning respecting them is pointless and potentially harmful. So yeah, put the animals to sleep before you butcher them.
Your logic leaded us to colonization, slavery and genocide. Please think before talking about traditions and religion.
You just jumped to a completely invalid conclusion, which is a poor use of logic. I never said using logic poorly was better than religion, I just said religion is bad.
Of course it's possible for people to make bad decisions and do wrong and evil things, or hold no decent values without religion. What's your point? It is possible for non-religious things to be bad too, I never said ONLY religion is bad. People are capable of doing evil deeds with and without religion. The important thing, is that when you are trying to do the right thing (which the events you describe were not, although what's wrong with the idea of colonization? Some turned out badly, but there's nothing wrong with the concept itself), that you do it for good reasons, or else you might easily wind up doing the wrong thing.
Read, think, then post.
You said we shouldn't respect traditions and religion of other people because of science, evidence, bla bla bla. Do you know why Europeans countries did colonize Africa, India, etc. Because they weren't respecting other cultures, other traditions and other religions, for them it was dumb people with dumb culture, and white people were going to learn them how to think and how to live. And you think exactly like this people.
That's not at all what I said, learn to read and think before you start accusing other people of being genocidal or of being slavers. The only reason I'm not horribly insulted by your moronic post is that it makes no sense at all. You not only managed to completely misunderstand and miss the entire point, but you also have again made a massive logical leap that is completely invalid and nonsensical. You're not right, you're not even wrong. Your argument is so off the track that it's essentially indecipherable. What the hell are you even trying to say?
I said values based in religion are dumb because there is no logical reason to hold those values, there is no evidence or data to support them. I did not say that all traditions and values are wrong! And again, as I said before, these people you are referring to DID NOT DO WHAT THEY DID BECAUSE THEY WERE TRYING TO DO GOOD OR TRYING TO BE GOOD PEOPLE. They were quite happy being evil and doing horrible things to others. I never once said that it's okay to do nasty horrible things to people if you don't think their values are worth respecting.
If you have a good reason for your values, then that's fantastic! Religion is, on the other reason, NOT a good reason.
On June 29 2011 15:39 hobosrus wrote: the poll is misleading. Slitting an animals throat isn't exactly inhumane torture. It is quick and painless
It's not that quick, and while it's not THAT painful, you are essentially suffocating the animal by preventing it from breathing. While conscious, that's extremely distressing, like drowning.
Religion for most is just a guide to a fulfilled life. Yes some people take it to extremes but you take anything to extremes and you are equally idiotic, poisonous and illogical. You cannot assume the views of a select few are matched by the masses either or you are no better than what you are trying to fight against.
No, what I mean is, all religion, regardless of how extreme or inoffensive it might be, is idiotic. It's dumb to believe in something and base real life decisions on that belief when there is absolutely zero evidence to support that belief.
You have zero reason to believe that living is "more good" than not living, and yet here you stand. Think of all the damage you're causing to the environment by existing! All that coal and oil you consume, and the trees you cut down to build your home, and the land you occupy that could be occupied by anything else. Unless, you don't value nature over yourself, of course. But you have no reason to value anything over anything else, so why would you?
What idiots indeed, having values that are consistent with their belief system.
Are you serious? no reason to think that being alive is better than being dead? As far as science goes being dead = game over and I don't think the vast majority of people want that.
It's true that people don't want that! But science unfortunately doesn't care either way.
My point is that you can't apply "logic and science" to basic things like values. Your values have no logical basis. They wouldn't be values then, they would be facts.
Yes, you can, and yes, I do. All the time. The fact that you actually think this way shows you have no understanding of what logic, reason, and science actually are, and don't understand what a value is.
I shall enlighten you:
A value is something that you hold to have worth, merit, and importance. Since your values are based in some form of reasoning on your part, the obvious question is why you hold those things as valuable to you. On the one hand, we have made up ideas like religion, and on the other we have actual scientific reasoning and logical conclusions based on reasonable arguments constructed from facts and evidence.
In other words, values should be derived from facts, data, and evidence. If they aren't, you have absolutely no good reason to hold those values.
Since the religious traditions of any group have no basis in fact, data, or evidence, there is no good reason to hold those values, meaning respecting them is pointless and potentially harmful. So yeah, put the animals to sleep before you butcher them.
Your logic leaded us to colonization, slavery and genocide. Please think before talking about traditions and religion.
You just jumped to a completely invalid conclusion, which is a poor use of logic. I never said using logic poorly was better than religion, I just said religion is bad.
Of course it's possible for people to make bad decisions and do wrong and evil things, or hold no decent values without religion. What's your point? It is possible for non-religious things to be bad too, I never said ONLY religion is bad. People are capable of doing evil deeds with and without religion. The important thing, is that when you are trying to do the right thing (which the events you describe were not, although what's wrong with the idea of colonization? Some turned out badly, but there's nothing wrong with the concept itself), that you do it for good reasons, or else you might easily wind up doing the wrong thing.
Read, think, then post.
You said we shouldn't respect traditions and religion of other people because of science, evidence, bla bla bla. Do you know why Europeans countries did colonize Africa, India, etc. Because they weren't respecting other cultures, other traditions and other religions, for them it was dumb people with dumb culture, and white people were going to learn them how to think and how to live. And you think exactly like this people.
That's not at all what I said, learn to read and think before you start accusing other people of being genocidal or of being slavers. The only reason I'm not horribly insulted by your moronic post is that it makes no sense at all. You not only managed to completely misunderstand and miss the entire point, but you also have again made a massive logical leap that is completely invalid and nonsensical. You're not right, you're not even wrong. Your argument is so off the track that it's essentially indecipherable. What the hell are you even trying to say?
I said values based in religion are dumb because there is no logical reason to hold those values, there is no evidence or data to support them. I did not say that all traditions and values are wrong! And again, as I said before, these people you are referring to DID NOT DO WHAT THEY DID BECAUSE THEY WERE TRYING TO DO GOOD OR TRYING TO BE GOOD PEOPLE. They were quite happy being evil and doing horrible things to others. I never once said that it's okay to do nasty horrible things to people if you don't think their values are worth respecting.
If you have a good reason for your values, then that's fantastic! Religion is, on the other reason, NOT a good reason.
Do you know that culture, tradition and religion are heavily linked and mixed? You can't separate them and you can't judge from your external fake scientist point of view what religious tradition is good and what is not.
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
that law allows freedom of religion, it doesnt seperate church and state
No, what I mean is, all religion, regardless of how extreme or inoffensive it might be, is idiotic. It's dumb to believe in something and base real life decisions on that belief when there is absolutely zero evidence to support that belief.
You have zero reason to believe that living is "more good" than not living, and yet here you stand. Think of all the damage you're causing to the environment by existing! All that coal and oil you consume, and the trees you cut down to build your home, and the land you occupy that could be occupied by anything else. Unless, you don't value nature over yourself, of course. But you have no reason to value anything over anything else, so why would you?
What idiots indeed, having values that are consistent with their belief system.
Are you serious? no reason to think that being alive is better than being dead? As far as science goes being dead = game over and I don't think the vast majority of people want that.
It's true that people don't want that! But science unfortunately doesn't care either way.
My point is that you can't apply "logic and science" to basic things like values. Your values have no logical basis. They wouldn't be values then, they would be facts.
Yes, you can, and yes, I do. All the time. The fact that you actually think this way shows you have no understanding of what logic, reason, and science actually are, and don't understand what a value is.
I shall enlighten you:
A value is something that you hold to have worth, merit, and importance. Since your values are based in some form of reasoning on your part, the obvious question is why you hold those things as valuable to you. On the one hand, we have made up ideas like religion, and on the other we have actual scientific reasoning and logical conclusions based on reasonable arguments constructed from facts and evidence.
In other words, values should be derived from facts, data, and evidence. If they aren't, you have absolutely no good reason to hold those values.
Since the religious traditions of any group have no basis in fact, data, or evidence, there is no good reason to hold those values, meaning respecting them is pointless and potentially harmful. So yeah, put the animals to sleep before you butcher them.
Your logic leaded us to colonization, slavery and genocide. Please think before talking about traditions and religion.
You just jumped to a completely invalid conclusion, which is a poor use of logic. I never said using logic poorly was better than religion, I just said religion is bad.
Of course it's possible for people to make bad decisions and do wrong and evil things, or hold no decent values without religion. What's your point? It is possible for non-religious things to be bad too, I never said ONLY religion is bad. People are capable of doing evil deeds with and without religion. The important thing, is that when you are trying to do the right thing (which the events you describe were not, although what's wrong with the idea of colonization? Some turned out badly, but there's nothing wrong with the concept itself), that you do it for good reasons, or else you might easily wind up doing the wrong thing.
Read, think, then post.
You said we shouldn't respect traditions and religion of other people because of science, evidence, bla bla bla. Do you know why Europeans countries did colonize Africa, India, etc. Because they weren't respecting other cultures, other traditions and other religions, for them it was dumb people with dumb culture, and white people were going to learn them how to think and how to live. And you think exactly like this people.
That's not at all what I said, learn to read and think before you start accusing other people of being genocidal or of being slavers. The only reason I'm not horribly insulted by your moronic post is that it makes no sense at all. You not only managed to completely misunderstand and miss the entire point, but you also have again made a massive logical leap that is completely invalid and nonsensical. You're not right, you're not even wrong. Your argument is so off the track that it's essentially indecipherable. What the hell are you even trying to say?
I said values based in religion are dumb because there is no logical reason to hold those values, there is no evidence or data to support them. I did not say that all traditions and values are wrong! And again, as I said before, these people you are referring to DID NOT DO WHAT THEY DID BECAUSE THEY WERE TRYING TO DO GOOD OR TRYING TO BE GOOD PEOPLE. They were quite happy being evil and doing horrible things to others. I never once said that it's okay to do nasty horrible things to people if you don't think their values are worth respecting.
If you have a good reason for your values, then that's fantastic! Religion is, on the other reason, NOT a good reason.
Do you know that culture, tradition and religion are heavily linked and mixed? You can't separate them and you can't judge from your external fake scientist point of view what religious tradition is good and what is not.
Oh really? So we couldn't judge whether human sacrifice is good if there is a religious tradition that demands it? People outside of the circle are much better at observing the shape... In fact, I would call an external scientists perspective better for analysing religion than a religious person... I voted the tradition, just because I hate PETA [even if that has nothing to do with it]. If there was an option for "religion does not get an exception to the law", I would have gone with that instead
Why would someone favor animal wellfare instead of some religions tradition? I find the poll result quite surprising. Its their traditional practice after all, let them do it. If you feel for the animal, just quit eating meat all together then. For me, I have no problem with whatever method they use to kill animals as long as they don't torture them to death.
No, what I mean is, all religion, regardless of how extreme or inoffensive it might be, is idiotic. It's dumb to believe in something and base real life decisions on that belief when there is absolutely zero evidence to support that belief.
You have zero reason to believe that living is "more good" than not living, and yet here you stand. Think of all the damage you're causing to the environment by existing! All that coal and oil you consume, and the trees you cut down to build your home, and the land you occupy that could be occupied by anything else. Unless, you don't value nature over yourself, of course. But you have no reason to value anything over anything else, so why would you?
What idiots indeed, having values that are consistent with their belief system.
Are you serious? no reason to think that being alive is better than being dead? As far as science goes being dead = game over and I don't think the vast majority of people want that.
It's true that people don't want that! But science unfortunately doesn't care either way.
My point is that you can't apply "logic and science" to basic things like values. Your values have no logical basis. They wouldn't be values then, they would be facts.
Yes, you can, and yes, I do. All the time. The fact that you actually think this way shows you have no understanding of what logic, reason, and science actually are, and don't understand what a value is.
I shall enlighten you:
A value is something that you hold to have worth, merit, and importance. Since your values are based in some form of reasoning on your part, the obvious question is why you hold those things as valuable to you. On the one hand, we have made up ideas like religion, and on the other we have actual scientific reasoning and logical conclusions based on reasonable arguments constructed from facts and evidence.
In other words, values should be derived from facts, data, and evidence. If they aren't, you have absolutely no good reason to hold those values.
Since the religious traditions of any group have no basis in fact, data, or evidence, there is no good reason to hold those values, meaning respecting them is pointless and potentially harmful. So yeah, put the animals to sleep before you butcher them.
Your logic leaded us to colonization, slavery and genocide. Please think before talking about traditions and religion.
You just jumped to a completely invalid conclusion, which is a poor use of logic. I never said using logic poorly was better than religion, I just said religion is bad.
Of course it's possible for people to make bad decisions and do wrong and evil things, or hold no decent values without religion. What's your point? It is possible for non-religious things to be bad too, I never said ONLY religion is bad. People are capable of doing evil deeds with and without religion. The important thing, is that when you are trying to do the right thing (which the events you describe were not, although what's wrong with the idea of colonization? Some turned out badly, but there's nothing wrong with the concept itself), that you do it for good reasons, or else you might easily wind up doing the wrong thing.
Read, think, then post.
You said we shouldn't respect traditions and religion of other people because of science, evidence, bla bla bla. Do you know why Europeans countries did colonize Africa, India, etc. Because they weren't respecting other cultures, other traditions and other religions, for them it was dumb people with dumb culture, and white people were going to learn them how to think and how to live. And you think exactly like this people.
That's not at all what I said, learn to read and think before you start accusing other people of being genocidal or of being slavers. The only reason I'm not horribly insulted by your moronic post is that it makes no sense at all. You not only managed to completely misunderstand and miss the entire point, but you also have again made a massive logical leap that is completely invalid and nonsensical. You're not right, you're not even wrong. Your argument is so off the track that it's essentially indecipherable. What the hell are you even trying to say?
I said values based in religion are dumb because there is no logical reason to hold those values, there is no evidence or data to support them. I did not say that all traditions and values are wrong! And again, as I said before, these people you are referring to DID NOT DO WHAT THEY DID BECAUSE THEY WERE TRYING TO DO GOOD OR TRYING TO BE GOOD PEOPLE. They were quite happy being evil and doing horrible things to others. I never once said that it's okay to do nasty horrible things to people if you don't think their values are worth respecting.
If you have a good reason for your values, then that's fantastic! Religion is, on the other reason, NOT a good reason.
Do you know that culture, tradition and religion are heavily linked and mixed? You can't separate them and you can't judge from your external fake scientist point of view what religious tradition is good and what is not.
Again, you jump to another strange conclusion that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I never said anything about separating them. I said values that are based on religious reasons are bad values to hold. On the other hand, values based on actual reasons, with evidence, facts and data to support those values are good. You don't need to separate them, what you should do as an individual, and as a culture and as a people is look at the values you hold and decide whether you actually have good reasons to hold those values or not.
More on topic: the reasons they have for having to kill the animals in that way are not good reasons, thus, that is a bad value to hold. On the other hand, requiring that animals to be put to sleep before you butcher them has several good reasons for it, so that's a good value.
And your disdain for science just shows your ignorance.
On June 29 2011 11:49 KhaosKreator wrote: [quote] You have zero reason to believe that living is "more good" than not living, and yet here you stand. Think of all the damage you're causing to the environment by existing! All that coal and oil you consume, and the trees you cut down to build your home, and the land you occupy that could be occupied by anything else. Unless, you don't value nature over yourself, of course. But you have no reason to value anything over anything else, so why would you?
What idiots indeed, having values that are consistent with their belief system.
Are you serious? no reason to think that being alive is better than being dead? As far as science goes being dead = game over and I don't think the vast majority of people want that.
It's true that people don't want that! But science unfortunately doesn't care either way.
My point is that you can't apply "logic and science" to basic things like values. Your values have no logical basis. They wouldn't be values then, they would be facts.
Yes, you can, and yes, I do. All the time. The fact that you actually think this way shows you have no understanding of what logic, reason, and science actually are, and don't understand what a value is.
I shall enlighten you:
A value is something that you hold to have worth, merit, and importance. Since your values are based in some form of reasoning on your part, the obvious question is why you hold those things as valuable to you. On the one hand, we have made up ideas like religion, and on the other we have actual scientific reasoning and logical conclusions based on reasonable arguments constructed from facts and evidence.
In other words, values should be derived from facts, data, and evidence. If they aren't, you have absolutely no good reason to hold those values.
Since the religious traditions of any group have no basis in fact, data, or evidence, there is no good reason to hold those values, meaning respecting them is pointless and potentially harmful. So yeah, put the animals to sleep before you butcher them.
Your logic leaded us to colonization, slavery and genocide. Please think before talking about traditions and religion.
You just jumped to a completely invalid conclusion, which is a poor use of logic. I never said using logic poorly was better than religion, I just said religion is bad.
Of course it's possible for people to make bad decisions and do wrong and evil things, or hold no decent values without religion. What's your point? It is possible for non-religious things to be bad too, I never said ONLY religion is bad. People are capable of doing evil deeds with and without religion. The important thing, is that when you are trying to do the right thing (which the events you describe were not, although what's wrong with the idea of colonization? Some turned out badly, but there's nothing wrong with the concept itself), that you do it for good reasons, or else you might easily wind up doing the wrong thing.
Read, think, then post.
You said we shouldn't respect traditions and religion of other people because of science, evidence, bla bla bla. Do you know why Europeans countries did colonize Africa, India, etc. Because they weren't respecting other cultures, other traditions and other religions, for them it was dumb people with dumb culture, and white people were going to learn them how to think and how to live. And you think exactly like this people.
That's not at all what I said, learn to read and think before you start accusing other people of being genocidal or of being slavers. The only reason I'm not horribly insulted by your moronic post is that it makes no sense at all. You not only managed to completely misunderstand and miss the entire point, but you also have again made a massive logical leap that is completely invalid and nonsensical. You're not right, you're not even wrong. Your argument is so off the track that it's essentially indecipherable. What the hell are you even trying to say?
I said values based in religion are dumb because there is no logical reason to hold those values, there is no evidence or data to support them. I did not say that all traditions and values are wrong! And again, as I said before, these people you are referring to DID NOT DO WHAT THEY DID BECAUSE THEY WERE TRYING TO DO GOOD OR TRYING TO BE GOOD PEOPLE. They were quite happy being evil and doing horrible things to others. I never once said that it's okay to do nasty horrible things to people if you don't think their values are worth respecting.
If you have a good reason for your values, then that's fantastic! Religion is, on the other reason, NOT a good reason.
Do you know that culture, tradition and religion are heavily linked and mixed? You can't separate them and you can't judge from your external fake scientist point of view what religious tradition is good and what is not.
Again, you jump to another strange conclusion that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I never said anything about separating them. I said values that are based on religious reasons are bad values to hold. On the other hand, values based on actual reasons, with evidence, facts and data to support those values are good. You don't need to separate them, what you should do as an individual, and as a culture and as a people is look at the values you hold and decide whether you actually have good reasons to hold those values or not.
And your disdain for science just shows your ignorance.
I'm not disdaining Science, i'm disdaining your science.
Wow this is a long discussion already. Personally, I don't care about halal/kosher food. What I do care about is good policy. This is not 'good' policy. Why not? Well since it is supposedly aimed at increasing animal welfare. What will this policy accomplish? Not much. Sure the law single-handedly killed off the halal/kosher meat industry in the Netherlands. But this does not mean people will eat less of it, therefore we will merely see an increase in importing halal/kosher. So the net result, if we assume the prices are the somewhat the same, is just that some butchers in the Netherlands will either do it 'under the counter' without any regard for animal welfare except their own moral scrutiny or become unemployed. We will start importing more which worsens our balance of payments a bit and as much animal cruelty will happen as before. Only now it will happen about two hours drive away from us. I've been going through this thread and most of it is pointless bickering between people with different morals, but if you look at the law from a rational standpoint you should see it is kind of pointless. (just as the bickering below :D )
On June 29 2011 11:55 Nothingtosay wrote: [quote] Are you serious? no reason to think that being alive is better than being dead? As far as science goes being dead = game over and I don't think the vast majority of people want that.
It's true that people don't want that! But science unfortunately doesn't care either way.
My point is that you can't apply "logic and science" to basic things like values. Your values have no logical basis. They wouldn't be values then, they would be facts.
Yes, you can, and yes, I do. All the time. The fact that you actually think this way shows you have no understanding of what logic, reason, and science actually are, and don't understand what a value is.
I shall enlighten you:
A value is something that you hold to have worth, merit, and importance. Since your values are based in some form of reasoning on your part, the obvious question is why you hold those things as valuable to you. On the one hand, we have made up ideas like religion, and on the other we have actual scientific reasoning and logical conclusions based on reasonable arguments constructed from facts and evidence.
In other words, values should be derived from facts, data, and evidence. If they aren't, you have absolutely no good reason to hold those values.
Since the religious traditions of any group have no basis in fact, data, or evidence, there is no good reason to hold those values, meaning respecting them is pointless and potentially harmful. So yeah, put the animals to sleep before you butcher them.
Your logic leaded us to colonization, slavery and genocide. Please think before talking about traditions and religion.
You just jumped to a completely invalid conclusion, which is a poor use of logic. I never said using logic poorly was better than religion, I just said religion is bad.
Of course it's possible for people to make bad decisions and do wrong and evil things, or hold no decent values without religion. What's your point? It is possible for non-religious things to be bad too, I never said ONLY religion is bad. People are capable of doing evil deeds with and without religion. The important thing, is that when you are trying to do the right thing (which the events you describe were not, although what's wrong with the idea of colonization? Some turned out badly, but there's nothing wrong with the concept itself), that you do it for good reasons, or else you might easily wind up doing the wrong thing.
Read, think, then post.
You said we shouldn't respect traditions and religion of other people because of science, evidence, bla bla bla. Do you know why Europeans countries did colonize Africa, India, etc. Because they weren't respecting other cultures, other traditions and other religions, for them it was dumb people with dumb culture, and white people were going to learn them how to think and how to live. And you think exactly like this people.
That's not at all what I said, learn to read and think before you start accusing other people of being genocidal or of being slavers. The only reason I'm not horribly insulted by your moronic post is that it makes no sense at all. You not only managed to completely misunderstand and miss the entire point, but you also have again made a massive logical leap that is completely invalid and nonsensical. You're not right, you're not even wrong. Your argument is so off the track that it's essentially indecipherable. What the hell are you even trying to say?
I said values based in religion are dumb because there is no logical reason to hold those values, there is no evidence or data to support them. I did not say that all traditions and values are wrong! And again, as I said before, these people you are referring to DID NOT DO WHAT THEY DID BECAUSE THEY WERE TRYING TO DO GOOD OR TRYING TO BE GOOD PEOPLE. They were quite happy being evil and doing horrible things to others. I never once said that it's okay to do nasty horrible things to people if you don't think their values are worth respecting.
If you have a good reason for your values, then that's fantastic! Religion is, on the other reason, NOT a good reason.
Do you know that culture, tradition and religion are heavily linked and mixed? You can't separate them and you can't judge from your external fake scientist point of view what religious tradition is good and what is not.
Again, you jump to another strange conclusion that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I never said anything about separating them. I said values that are based on religious reasons are bad values to hold. On the other hand, values based on actual reasons, with evidence, facts and data to support those values are good. You don't need to separate them, what you should do as an individual, and as a culture and as a people is look at the values you hold and decide whether you actually have good reasons to hold those values or not.
And your disdain for science just shows your ignorance.
I'm not disdaining Science, i'm disdaining your science.
.... At this point, I don't think you even know what you're talking about. It's pretty clear you don't even know what science is, as a discipline and as a method.
On June 29 2011 11:58 KhaosKreator wrote: [quote] It's true that people don't want that! But science unfortunately doesn't care either way.
My point is that you can't apply "logic and science" to basic things like values. Your values have no logical basis. They wouldn't be values then, they would be facts.
Yes, you can, and yes, I do. All the time. The fact that you actually think this way shows you have no understanding of what logic, reason, and science actually are, and don't understand what a value is.
I shall enlighten you:
A value is something that you hold to have worth, merit, and importance. Since your values are based in some form of reasoning on your part, the obvious question is why you hold those things as valuable to you. On the one hand, we have made up ideas like religion, and on the other we have actual scientific reasoning and logical conclusions based on reasonable arguments constructed from facts and evidence.
In other words, values should be derived from facts, data, and evidence. If they aren't, you have absolutely no good reason to hold those values.
Since the religious traditions of any group have no basis in fact, data, or evidence, there is no good reason to hold those values, meaning respecting them is pointless and potentially harmful. So yeah, put the animals to sleep before you butcher them.
Your logic leaded us to colonization, slavery and genocide. Please think before talking about traditions and religion.
You just jumped to a completely invalid conclusion, which is a poor use of logic. I never said using logic poorly was better than religion, I just said religion is bad.
Of course it's possible for people to make bad decisions and do wrong and evil things, or hold no decent values without religion. What's your point? It is possible for non-religious things to be bad too, I never said ONLY religion is bad. People are capable of doing evil deeds with and without religion. The important thing, is that when you are trying to do the right thing (which the events you describe were not, although what's wrong with the idea of colonization? Some turned out badly, but there's nothing wrong with the concept itself), that you do it for good reasons, or else you might easily wind up doing the wrong thing.
Read, think, then post.
You said we shouldn't respect traditions and religion of other people because of science, evidence, bla bla bla. Do you know why Europeans countries did colonize Africa, India, etc. Because they weren't respecting other cultures, other traditions and other religions, for them it was dumb people with dumb culture, and white people were going to learn them how to think and how to live. And you think exactly like this people.
That's not at all what I said, learn to read and think before you start accusing other people of being genocidal or of being slavers. The only reason I'm not horribly insulted by your moronic post is that it makes no sense at all. You not only managed to completely misunderstand and miss the entire point, but you also have again made a massive logical leap that is completely invalid and nonsensical. You're not right, you're not even wrong. Your argument is so off the track that it's essentially indecipherable. What the hell are you even trying to say?
I said values based in religion are dumb because there is no logical reason to hold those values, there is no evidence or data to support them. I did not say that all traditions and values are wrong! And again, as I said before, these people you are referring to DID NOT DO WHAT THEY DID BECAUSE THEY WERE TRYING TO DO GOOD OR TRYING TO BE GOOD PEOPLE. They were quite happy being evil and doing horrible things to others. I never once said that it's okay to do nasty horrible things to people if you don't think their values are worth respecting.
If you have a good reason for your values, then that's fantastic! Religion is, on the other reason, NOT a good reason.
Do you know that culture, tradition and religion are heavily linked and mixed? You can't separate them and you can't judge from your external fake scientist point of view what religious tradition is good and what is not.
Again, you jump to another strange conclusion that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I never said anything about separating them. I said values that are based on religious reasons are bad values to hold. On the other hand, values based on actual reasons, with evidence, facts and data to support those values are good. You don't need to separate them, what you should do as an individual, and as a culture and as a people is look at the values you hold and decide whether you actually have good reasons to hold those values or not.
And your disdain for science just shows your ignorance.
I'm not disdaining Science, i'm disdaining your science.
.... At this point, I don't think you even know what you're talking about. It's pretty clear you don't even know what science is, as a discipline and as a method.
Yeah i don't know science, and? Because you know what science is, it makes you better than me?
On June 29 2011 10:53 Whitewing wrote: The religions have no good reason to follow through on this, other than "lol tradition and religion." Animals not being tormented as they are being slaughtered is so far ahead of religious traditions in my book on the priority list that it's not even funny.
Screw the religious traditions.
Isn't the intolerance for others view's the same reason you guys dislike religion? This comes off as hypocritical to me, Halal/Kosher butchering is designed to virtually eliminate suffering from the animal. I cannot understand why people believe its okay to insert morals from only one side of an issue.
No, the major reason most people dislike religion is that it's idiotic, poisonous, has no logical reason for it whatsoever, and it gets in the way of human development and progress.
Religion for most is just a guide to a fulfilled life. Yes some people take it to extremes but you take anything to extremes and you are equally idiotic, poisonous and illogical. You cannot assume the views of a select few are matched by the masses either or you are no better than what you are trying to fight against.
No, what I mean is, all religion, regardless of how extreme or inoffensive it might be, is idiotic. It's dumb to believe in something and base real life decisions on that belief when there is absolutely zero evidence to support that belief.
You have zero reason to believe that living is "more good" than not living, and yet here you stand. Think of all the damage you're causing to the environment by existing! All that coal and oil you consume, and the trees you cut down to build your home, and the land you occupy that could be occupied by anything else. Unless, you don't value nature over yourself, of course. But you have no reason to value anything over anything else, so why would you?
What idiots indeed, having values that are consistent with their belief system.
Are you serious? no reason to think that being alive is better than being dead? As far as science goes being dead = game over and I don't think the vast majority of people want that.
It's true that people don't want that! But science unfortunately doesn't care either way.
My point is that you can't apply "logic and science" to basic things like values. Your values have no logical basis. They wouldn't be values then, they would be facts.
Since the religious traditions of any group have no basis in fact, data, or evidence, there is no good reason to hold those values, meaning respecting them is pointless and potentially harmful. So yeah, put the animals to sleep before you butcher them.
@Velr
Well he is saying we shouldn't respect religious tradition because of science, evidence, etc. And i gave him an example why it's bad to think like that because it leads to a false superiority feeling. That's my point.
I don't care either way, because neither animal welfare (at least with regards to killing method) nor religious customs are important to me.
If animals potentially don't have good muscles because of confinement, or are loaded with a bunch of antibiotics and/or disease making the meat different, then those are important "animal welfare" issues, but not the method of killing.
You think honey badger cares how he treats his prey? hell nawwww - we should learn from that.+ Show Spoiler +
Overall the knifes are maybe a bit more messy, and potentially more dangerous or slow? but all that is pretty small considering that stunning still needs to cut also. The stunners are more expensive, but don't know of any other downside. Not a big deal either way IMO, but probably leaning a bit to stun.
Yes, you can, and yes, I do. All the time. The fact that you actually think this way shows you have no understanding of what logic, reason, and science actually are, and don't understand what a value is.
I shall enlighten you:
A value is something that you hold to have worth, merit, and importance. Since your values are based in some form of reasoning on your part, the obvious question is why you hold those things as valuable to you. On the one hand, we have made up ideas like religion, and on the other we have actual scientific reasoning and logical conclusions based on reasonable arguments constructed from facts and evidence.
In other words, values should be derived from facts, data, and evidence. If they aren't, you have absolutely no good reason to hold those values.
Since the religious traditions of any group have no basis in fact, data, or evidence, there is no good reason to hold those values, meaning respecting them is pointless and potentially harmful. So yeah, put the animals to sleep before you butcher them.
Your logic leaded us to colonization, slavery and genocide. Please think before talking about traditions and religion.
You just jumped to a completely invalid conclusion, which is a poor use of logic. I never said using logic poorly was better than religion, I just said religion is bad.
Of course it's possible for people to make bad decisions and do wrong and evil things, or hold no decent values without religion. What's your point? It is possible for non-religious things to be bad too, I never said ONLY religion is bad. People are capable of doing evil deeds with and without religion. The important thing, is that when you are trying to do the right thing (which the events you describe were not, although what's wrong with the idea of colonization? Some turned out badly, but there's nothing wrong with the concept itself), that you do it for good reasons, or else you might easily wind up doing the wrong thing.
Read, think, then post.
You said we shouldn't respect traditions and religion of other people because of science, evidence, bla bla bla. Do you know why Europeans countries did colonize Africa, India, etc. Because they weren't respecting other cultures, other traditions and other religions, for them it was dumb people with dumb culture, and white people were going to learn them how to think and how to live. And you think exactly like this people.
That's not at all what I said, learn to read and think before you start accusing other people of being genocidal or of being slavers. The only reason I'm not horribly insulted by your moronic post is that it makes no sense at all. You not only managed to completely misunderstand and miss the entire point, but you also have again made a massive logical leap that is completely invalid and nonsensical. You're not right, you're not even wrong. Your argument is so off the track that it's essentially indecipherable. What the hell are you even trying to say?
I said values based in religion are dumb because there is no logical reason to hold those values, there is no evidence or data to support them. I did not say that all traditions and values are wrong! And again, as I said before, these people you are referring to DID NOT DO WHAT THEY DID BECAUSE THEY WERE TRYING TO DO GOOD OR TRYING TO BE GOOD PEOPLE. They were quite happy being evil and doing horrible things to others. I never once said that it's okay to do nasty horrible things to people if you don't think their values are worth respecting.
If you have a good reason for your values, then that's fantastic! Religion is, on the other reason, NOT a good reason.
Do you know that culture, tradition and religion are heavily linked and mixed? You can't separate them and you can't judge from your external fake scientist point of view what religious tradition is good and what is not.
Again, you jump to another strange conclusion that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I never said anything about separating them. I said values that are based on religious reasons are bad values to hold. On the other hand, values based on actual reasons, with evidence, facts and data to support those values are good. You don't need to separate them, what you should do as an individual, and as a culture and as a people is look at the values you hold and decide whether you actually have good reasons to hold those values or not.
And your disdain for science just shows your ignorance.
I'm not disdaining Science, i'm disdaining your science.
.... At this point, I don't think you even know what you're talking about. It's pretty clear you don't even know what science is, as a discipline and as a method.
Yeah i don't know science, and? Because you know what science is, it makes you better than me?
I never once said I was better than you. I do think I *know* more than you do in this regard based on the discussion so far, but having more knowledge does not necessarily make one *better*. I believe you are genuinely trying to be a good person and support what you think is right in the best way you know how, but based on the discussion so far, you lack an understanding of what science is, which undermines your entire argument and point of view.
Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I think I'm better than you.
I do believe that having a good understanding of the scientific method is very important, and unfortunately the vast majority of people on the planet (hell, even in most first world countries) do not. It might not necessarily be your fault that you don't understand it very well, so I would suggest and recommend learning about it and educating yourself with regards to what logic is (and how it functions), and what science is. If you educate yourself in this regard, you'll find that you will have a very different view of things, because you'll have a better background and understanding of how to reason properly (most people don't).
That said, I'm sure you can agree with the following statement:
"Holding values that have good reasons for holding them is better than holding values without good reasons for holding them."
That's all I've been saying this entire time.
EDIT: And yes, being educated and more knowledgeable is always better than not being educated an being less knowledgeable. It doesn't necessarily make you a better person, but it is better to be educated.
Sorry but I've gotta vote in favor of the animal welfare.
The "ancient Jewish and Muslim dietary laws and practices" should place more emphasis on the "ancient". No need to make the animal suffer a painful death when it can be avoided.
Maybe if I believed in their ancient traditions I might be more partial to their view, but I just don't see how it's a strong stance to take at all.
It's as much a violation of exercising one's religious freedom to outlaw this as it is to outlaw stoning children to death who disrespect their parents.
On June 29 2011 10:53 Whitewing wrote: The religions have no good reason to follow through on this, other than "lol tradition and religion." Animals not being tormented as they are being slaughtered is so far ahead of religious traditions in my book on the priority list that it's not even funny.
Screw the religious traditions.
Isn't the intolerance for others view's the same reason you guys dislike religion? This comes off as hypocritical to me, Halal/Kosher butchering is designed to virtually eliminate suffering from the animal. I cannot understand why people believe its okay to insert morals from only one side of an issue.
No, the major reason most people dislike religion is that it's idiotic, poisonous, has no logical reason for it whatsoever, and it gets in the way of human development and progress.
Religion for most is just a guide to a fulfilled life. Yes some people take it to extremes but you take anything to extremes and you are equally idiotic, poisonous and illogical. You cannot assume the views of a select few are matched by the masses either or you are no better than what you are trying to fight against.
No, what I mean is, all religion, regardless of how extreme or inoffensive it might be, is idiotic. It's dumb to believe in something and base real life decisions on that belief when there is absolutely zero evidence to support that belief.
You have zero reason to believe that living is "more good" than not living, and yet here you stand. Think of all the damage you're causing to the environment by existing! All that coal and oil you consume, and the trees you cut down to build your home, and the land you occupy that could be occupied by anything else. Unless, you don't value nature over yourself, of course. But you have no reason to value anything over anything else, so why would you?
What idiots indeed, having values that are consistent with their belief system.
Are you serious? no reason to think that being alive is better than being dead? As far as science goes being dead = game over and I don't think the vast majority of people want that.
It's true that people don't want that! But science unfortunately doesn't care either way.
My point is that you can't apply "logic and science" to basic things like values. Your values have no logical basis. They wouldn't be values then, they would be facts.
Since the religious traditions of any group have no basis in fact, data, or evidence, there is no good reason to hold those values, meaning respecting them is pointless and potentially harmful. So yeah, put the animals to sleep before you butcher them.
@Velr
Well he is saying we shouldn't respect religious tradition because of science, evidence, etc. And i gave him an example why it's bad to think like that because it leads to a false superiority feeling. That's my point.
First, sorry for the little flame, couldn't resist there .
No, he's not saying we should disrespect religious tradition. He says we should disrespect religious tradition when we KNOW (so 99%++ certainity) that the religious tradition is bad for some reason.
Thats a huge diffrence. Religions have changed many of their old practises/traditions over the curse of time whenever there was overwhelming, scientific, evidence that some tradition/practise was wrong/bad/untrue... There is a reason that for instance catholicism nowadays I diffrent from what it was 200 or even 50 years ago...
On June 29 2011 10:53 Whitewing wrote: The religions have no good reason to follow through on this, other than "lol tradition and religion." Animals not being tormented as they are being slaughtered is so far ahead of religious traditions in my book on the priority list that it's not even funny.
Screw the religious traditions.
Isn't the intolerance for others view's the same reason you guys dislike religion? This comes off as hypocritical to me, Halal/Kosher butchering is designed to virtually eliminate suffering from the animal. I cannot understand why people believe its okay to insert morals from only one side of an issue.
No, the major reason most people dislike religion is that it's idiotic, poisonous, has no logical reason for it whatsoever, and it gets in the way of human development and progress.
Religion for most is just a guide to a fulfilled life. Yes some people take it to extremes but you take anything to extremes and you are equally idiotic, poisonous and illogical. You cannot assume the views of a select few are matched by the masses either or you are no better than what you are trying to fight against.
No, what I mean is, all religion, regardless of how extreme or inoffensive it might be, is idiotic. It's dumb to believe in something and base real life decisions on that belief when there is absolutely zero evidence to support that belief.
You have zero reason to believe that living is "more good" than not living, and yet here you stand. Think of all the damage you're causing to the environment by existing! All that coal and oil you consume, and the trees you cut down to build your home, and the land you occupy that could be occupied by anything else. Unless, you don't value nature over yourself, of course. But you have no reason to value anything over anything else, so why would you?
What idiots indeed, having values that are consistent with their belief system.
Are you serious? no reason to think that being alive is better than being dead? As far as science goes being dead = game over and I don't think the vast majority of people want that.
It's true that people don't want that! But science unfortunately doesn't care either way.
My point is that you can't apply "logic and science" to basic things like values. Your values have no logical basis. They wouldn't be values then, they would be facts.
Since the religious traditions of any group have no basis in fact, data, or evidence, there is no good reason to hold those values, meaning respecting them is pointless and potentially harmful. So yeah, put the animals to sleep before you butcher them.
@Velr
Well he is saying we shouldn't respect religious tradition because of science, evidence, etc. And i gave him an example why it's bad to think like that because it leads to a false superiority feeling. That's my point.
Edit:
Yes, that makes him clearly better than you.
Good to know.
First, sorry for the little flame, couldn't resist there .
No, he's not saying we should disrespect religious tradition. He says we should disrespect religious tradition when we KNOW (so 99%++ certainity) that the religious tradition is bad for some reason.
Thats a huge diffrence. Religions have changed many of their old practises/traditions over the curse of time whenever there was overwhelming, scientific, evidence that some tradition/practise was wrong/bad/untrue... There is a reason that for instance catholicism nowadays I diffrent from what it was 200 or even 50 years ago...
That's pretty close, what I actually meant was that we should not respect religious tradition because religion by definition has no evidence to support it, and therefore neither does its teachings. On the other hand, if they can give a good reason other than a religious one for why they have a tradition, then it would be worthy of respect, depending on how good the reason is.
For example, I value helping other people, because of the evolutionary aspect of it (we evolved as a social species), and because I know that helping others is likely to help me at some point, and because I value the success of our species (another evolved value). I can list at least 10 reasons why I hold this particular value.
On the other hand, I've yet to find one good reason why you have to slaughter animals by cutting their throat while they are conscious.
Also, I disagree with the 99% certainty statement, I believe the United States legal requirement is sufficient: beyond reasonable doubt, which I generally place at around 70-80% certainty, assuming you can accurately quantify such things.
Maybe we should judge this on a scientific evaluation?
Ritual slaughter is slaughter performed according to the dietary codes of Jews or Muslims. Cattle, sheep, or goats are exsanguinated by a throat cut without first being rendered unconscious by preslaughter stunning. Ritual slaughter is exempt from the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of 1978 to protect religious freedom.
Because ritual slaughter is exempt, some plants use cruel methods of restraint, such as suspending a conscious animal by a chain wrapped around one hind limb. In other plants, the animal is held in a restrainer that holds it in an upright position. Whether or not ritual slaughter conforms to the requirements of euthanasia is a controversial question. When ritual slaughter is being evaluated, the variable of restraint method must be separated from the act of throat cutting without prior stunning. Distressful restraint methods mask the animals’ reactions to the cut.
The author designed and operated four state-of-the-art restraint devices that hold cattle and calves in a comfortable upright position during kosher (Jewish; Fig 3) slaughter. To determine whether cattle feel the throat cut, at one plant the author deliberately applied the head restrainer so lightly that the animals could pull their heads out. None of the 10 cattle moved or attempted to pull their heads out. Observations of hundreds of cattle and calves during kosher slaughter indicated that there was a slight quiver when the knife first contacted the throat. Invasion of the cattle’s flight zone by touching its head caused a bigger reaction. In another informal experiment, mature bulls and Holstein cows were gently restrained in a head holder with no body restraint. All of them stood still during the cut and did not appear to feel it. Disturbing the edges of the incision or bumping it against the equipment, however, is likely to cause pain. Observations by the author also indicated that the head must be restrained in such a manner that the incision does not close back over the knife. Cattle and sheep struggle violently if the edges of the incision touch during the cut.
The design of the knife and the cutting technique appeared to be critical in preventing the animal from reacting to the cut. In kosher slaughter, a straight, razor-sharp knife that is twice the width of the throat is required, and the cut must be made in a single continuous motion. For halal (Muslim) slaughter, there are no knife-design requirements. Halal slaughter performed with short knives and multiple hacking cuts resulted in a vigorous reaction from cattle. Fortunately, many Muslim religious authorities accept preslaughter stunning. Muslims should be encouraged to stun the cattle or use long, straight, razor-sharp knives that are similar to the ones used for kosher slaughter.
Investigators agree that kosher slaughter does not induce instantaneous unconsciousness47,48,b. In some cattle, consciousness is prolonged for over 60 seconds. Observations by the author indicated that near immediate collapse can be induced in over 95% of cattle if the ritual slaughterer makes a rapid, deep cut close to the jawbone45. Further observations indicated that calm cows and bulls lose sensibility and collapse more quickly than cattle with visible signs of agitation. The author has observed that cattle that fight restraint are more likely to have prolonged sensibility. Gentle operation of restraint devices facilitates rapid loss of sensibility.
Cattle do not appear distressed even when the onset of unconsciousness is delayed. Pain and distress cannot be determined by measurements such as an electroencephalogram. Behavioral observations, however, are valid measures for assessing pain49. The author has observed that cattle appear unaware that their throat is cut. Investigators in New Zealand have made similar observations50. Immediately after the cut, the head holder should be loosened slightly to allow the animal to relax. The author also has observed that after the head restraint is released, the animal collapses almost immediately or stands and looks around like a normal, alert animal. Within 5 to 60 seconds, cattle go into a hypoxic spasm and sensibility appears to be lost. The spasms are similar to those that occur when cattle become unconscious in a headgate that is used for restraint in feedlots. Practical experience has shown that pressure on the carotid arteries and surrounding areas of the neck from a V-shaped headgate stanchion can kill cattle within 30 seconds.
Even though exsanguination is not an approved method of euthanasia by the AVMA1, the author has observed that kosher slaughter performed with the long, straight, razor-sharp knife does not appear to be painful. This is an area that needs further research. One can conclude that it is probably less distressful than poorly performed captive—bolt or electrical stunning methods, which release large amounts of epinephrine.
EDIT: TL;DR- Ritual throat cutting seems not to be painful to animals, although poor handling before the process can cause them agitation. In fact, with certain types of knives, it has been observed to be less disturbing to animals than boltgun-slaughter.
On June 29 2011 10:53 Whitewing wrote: The religions have no good reason to follow through on this, other than "lol tradition and religion." Animals not being tormented as they are being slaughtered is so far ahead of religious traditions in my book on the priority list that it's not even funny.
Screw the religious traditions.
Isn't the intolerance for others view's the same reason you guys dislike religion? This comes off as hypocritical to me, Halal/Kosher butchering is designed to virtually eliminate suffering from the animal. I cannot understand why people believe its okay to insert morals from only one side of an issue.
No, the major reason most people dislike religion is that it's idiotic, poisonous, has no logical reason for it whatsoever, and it gets in the way of human development and progress.
Religion for most is just a guide to a fulfilled life. Yes some people take it to extremes but you take anything to extremes and you are equally idiotic, poisonous and illogical. You cannot assume the views of a select few are matched by the masses either or you are no better than what you are trying to fight against.
No, what I mean is, all religion, regardless of how extreme or inoffensive it might be, is idiotic. It's dumb to believe in something and base real life decisions on that belief when there is absolutely zero evidence to support that belief.
You have zero reason to believe that living is "more good" than not living, and yet here you stand. Think of all the damage you're causing to the environment by existing! All that coal and oil you consume, and the trees you cut down to build your home, and the land you occupy that could be occupied by anything else. Unless, you don't value nature over yourself, of course. But you have no reason to value anything over anything else, so why would you?
What idiots indeed, having values that are consistent with their belief system.
Are you serious? no reason to think that being alive is better than being dead? As far as science goes being dead = game over and I don't think the vast majority of people want that.
It's true that people don't want that! But science unfortunately doesn't care either way.
My point is that you can't apply "logic and science" to basic things like values. Your values have no logical basis. They wouldn't be values then, they would be facts.
Since the religious traditions of any group have no basis in fact, data, or evidence, there is no good reason to hold those values, meaning respecting them is pointless and potentially harmful. So yeah, put the animals to sleep before you butcher them.
@Velr
Well he is saying we shouldn't respect religious tradition because of science, evidence, etc. And i gave him an example why it's bad to think like that because it leads to a false superiority feeling. That's my point.
Edit:
Yes, that makes him clearly better than you.
Good to know.
First, sorry for the little flame, couldn't resist there .
No, he's not saying we should disrespect religious tradition. He says we should disrespect religious tradition when we KNOW (so 99%++ certainity) that the religious tradition is bad for some reason.
Thats a huge diffrence. Religions have changed many of their old practises/traditions over the curse of time whenever there was overwhelming, scientific, evidence that some tradition/practise was wrong/bad/untrue... There is a reason that for instance catholicism nowadays I diffrent from what it was 200 or even 50 years ago...
Well fair enough, but for the hallal/kosher we don't know with 99% certainity that this tradition is bad/wrong. we have contradictory surveys.
Ritual slaughter is slaughter performed according to the dietary codes of Jews or Muslims. Cattle, sheep, or goats are exsanguinated by a throat cut without first being rendered unconscious by preslaughter stunning. Ritual slaughter is exempt from the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of 1978 to protect religious freedom.
Because ritual slaughter is exempt, some plants use cruel methods of restraint, such as suspending a conscious animal by a chain wrapped around one hind limb. In other plants, the animal is held in a restrainer that holds it in an upright position. Whether or not ritual slaughter conforms to the requirements of euthanasia is a controversial question. When ritual slaughter is being evaluated, the variable of restraint method must be separated from the act of throat cutting without prior stunning. Distressful restraint methods mask the animals’ reactions to the cut.
The author designed and operated four state-of-the-art restraint devices that hold cattle and calves in a comfortable upright position during kosher (Jewish; Fig 3) slaughter. To determine whether cattle feel the throat cut, at one plant the author deliberately applied the head restrainer so lightly that the animals could pull their heads out. None of the 10 cattle moved or attempted to pull their heads out. Observations of hundreds of cattle and calves during kosher slaughter indicated that there was a slight quiver when the knife first contacted the throat. Invasion of the cattle’s flight zone by touching its head caused a bigger reaction. In another informal experiment, mature bulls and Holstein cows were gently restrained in a head holder with no body restraint. All of them stood still during the cut and did not appear to feel it. Disturbing the edges of the incision or bumping it against the equipment, however, is likely to cause pain. Observations by the author also indicated that the head must be restrained in such a manner that the incision does not close back over the knife. Cattle and sheep struggle violently if the edges of the incision touch during the cut.
EDIT: TL;DR- Ritual throat cutting seems not to be painful to animals, although poor handling before the process can cause them agitation.
I imagine that the actual cut isn't particularly painful, but that the lack of air would be distressing. If he is able to provide compelling testable evidence that the animals actually aren't bothered by being suffocated to death, then I'd be completely fine with it.
On June 29 2011 10:53 Whitewing wrote: The religions have no good reason to follow through on this, other than "lol tradition and religion." Animals not being tormented as they are being slaughtered is so far ahead of religious traditions in my book on the priority list that it's not even funny.
Screw the religious traditions.
[quote]
No, the major reason most people dislike religion is that it's idiotic, poisonous, has no logical reason for it whatsoever, and it gets in the way of human development and progress.
Religion for most is just a guide to a fulfilled life. Yes some people take it to extremes but you take anything to extremes and you are equally idiotic, poisonous and illogical. You cannot assume the views of a select few are matched by the masses either or you are no better than what you are trying to fight against.
No, what I mean is, all religion, regardless of how extreme or inoffensive it might be, is idiotic. It's dumb to believe in something and base real life decisions on that belief when there is absolutely zero evidence to support that belief.
You have zero reason to believe that living is "more good" than not living, and yet here you stand. Think of all the damage you're causing to the environment by existing! All that coal and oil you consume, and the trees you cut down to build your home, and the land you occupy that could be occupied by anything else. Unless, you don't value nature over yourself, of course. But you have no reason to value anything over anything else, so why would you?
What idiots indeed, having values that are consistent with their belief system.
Are you serious? no reason to think that being alive is better than being dead? As far as science goes being dead = game over and I don't think the vast majority of people want that.
It's true that people don't want that! But science unfortunately doesn't care either way.
My point is that you can't apply "logic and science" to basic things like values. Your values have no logical basis. They wouldn't be values then, they would be facts.
Since the religious traditions of any group have no basis in fact, data, or evidence, there is no good reason to hold those values, meaning respecting them is pointless and potentially harmful. So yeah, put the animals to sleep before you butcher them.
@Velr
Well he is saying we shouldn't respect religious tradition because of science, evidence, etc. And i gave him an example why it's bad to think like that because it leads to a false superiority feeling. That's my point.
Edit:
Yes, that makes him clearly better than you.
Good to know.
First, sorry for the little flame, couldn't resist there .
No, he's not saying we should disrespect religious tradition. He says we should disrespect religious tradition when we KNOW (so 99%++ certainity) that the religious tradition is bad for some reason.
Thats a huge diffrence. Religions have changed many of their old practises/traditions over the curse of time whenever there was overwhelming, scientific, evidence that some tradition/practise was wrong/bad/untrue... There is a reason that for instance catholicism nowadays I diffrent from what it was 200 or even 50 years ago...
Well fair enough, but for the hallal/kashor we don't know with 99% certainity that this tradition is bad/wrong. we have contradictory surveys.
He also misunderstood me, although slightly. I didn't mean you needed absolute certainty to decide a tradition is a poor one, it actually works in reverse:
The scientific method is not about disproving things. You don't need to decide a tradition is bad. It works the exact other way around: you need to prove a tradition is good. If you can provide a good reason why a tradition is a good one, that's great. If you can't, then it should be abandoned. I don't need to provide a reason why the tradition is bad.
On June 29 2011 16:21 Expurgate wrote: Maybe we should judge this on a scientific evaluation?
Ritual slaughter is slaughter performed according to the dietary codes of Jews or Muslims. Cattle, sheep, or goats are exsanguinated by a throat cut without first being rendered unconscious by preslaughter stunning. Ritual slaughter is exempt from the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of 1978 to protect religious freedom.
Because ritual slaughter is exempt, some plants use cruel methods of restraint, such as suspending a conscious animal by a chain wrapped around one hind limb. In other plants, the animal is held in a restrainer that holds it in an upright position. Whether or not ritual slaughter conforms to the requirements of euthanasia is a controversial question. When ritual slaughter is being evaluated, the variable of restraint method must be separated from the act of throat cutting without prior stunning. Distressful restraint methods mask the animals’ reactions to the cut.
The author designed and operated four state-of-the-art restraint devices that hold cattle and calves in a comfortable upright position during kosher (Jewish; Fig 3) slaughter. To determine whether cattle feel the throat cut, at one plant the author deliberately applied the head restrainer so lightly that the animals could pull their heads out. None of the 10 cattle moved or attempted to pull their heads out. Observations of hundreds of cattle and calves during kosher slaughter indicated that there was a slight quiver when the knife first contacted the throat. Invasion of the cattle’s flight zone by touching its head caused a bigger reaction. In another informal experiment, mature bulls and Holstein cows were gently restrained in a head holder with no body restraint. All of them stood still during the cut and did not appear to feel it. Disturbing the edges of the incision or bumping it against the equipment, however, is likely to cause pain. Observations by the author also indicated that the head must be restrained in such a manner that the incision does not close back over the knife. Cattle and sheep struggle violently if the edges of the incision touch during the cut.
EDIT: TL;DR- Ritual throat cutting seems not to be painful to animals, although poor handling before the process can cause them agitation.
I imagine that the actual cut isn't particularly painful, but that the lack of air would be distressing. If he is able to provide compelling testable evidence that the animals actually aren't bothered by being suffocated to death, then I'd be completely fine with it.
Actually i don't think the animal die from suffocating, he dies because lack of irrigation for his brain. i could be wrong, i'm not entirely sure.
Religion for most is just a guide to a fulfilled life. Yes some people take it to extremes but you take anything to extremes and you are equally idiotic, poisonous and illogical. You cannot assume the views of a select few are matched by the masses either or you are no better than what you are trying to fight against.
No, what I mean is, all religion, regardless of how extreme or inoffensive it might be, is idiotic. It's dumb to believe in something and base real life decisions on that belief when there is absolutely zero evidence to support that belief.
You have zero reason to believe that living is "more good" than not living, and yet here you stand. Think of all the damage you're causing to the environment by existing! All that coal and oil you consume, and the trees you cut down to build your home, and the land you occupy that could be occupied by anything else. Unless, you don't value nature over yourself, of course. But you have no reason to value anything over anything else, so why would you?
What idiots indeed, having values that are consistent with their belief system.
Are you serious? no reason to think that being alive is better than being dead? As far as science goes being dead = game over and I don't think the vast majority of people want that.
It's true that people don't want that! But science unfortunately doesn't care either way.
My point is that you can't apply "logic and science" to basic things like values. Your values have no logical basis. They wouldn't be values then, they would be facts.
Since the religious traditions of any group have no basis in fact, data, or evidence, there is no good reason to hold those values, meaning respecting them is pointless and potentially harmful. So yeah, put the animals to sleep before you butcher them.
@Velr
Well he is saying we shouldn't respect religious tradition because of science, evidence, etc. And i gave him an example why it's bad to think like that because it leads to a false superiority feeling. That's my point.
Edit:
Yes, that makes him clearly better than you.
Good to know.
First, sorry for the little flame, couldn't resist there .
No, he's not saying we should disrespect religious tradition. He says we should disrespect religious tradition when we KNOW (so 99%++ certainity) that the religious tradition is bad for some reason.
Thats a huge diffrence. Religions have changed many of their old practises/traditions over the curse of time whenever there was overwhelming, scientific, evidence that some tradition/practise was wrong/bad/untrue... There is a reason that for instance catholicism nowadays I diffrent from what it was 200 or even 50 years ago...
Well fair enough, but for the hallal/kashor we don't know with 99% certainity that this tradition is bad/wrong. we have contradictory surveys.
He also misunderstood me, although slightly. I didn't mean you needed absolute certainty to decide a tradition is a poor one, it actually works in reverse:
The scientific method is not about disproving things. You don't need to decide a tradition is bad. It works the exact other way around: you need to prove a tradition is good. If you can provide a good reason why a tradition is a good one, that's great. If you can't, then it should be abandoned. I don't need to provide a reason why the tradition is bad.
I can't agree, if the tradition is proven neutral, it shouldn't be abandoned. It doesn't has to be good. a bad/wrong tradition sould be abandoned, i'm ok with it.
On June 29 2011 16:28 Whitewing wrote: ........The scientific method is not about disproving things. You don't need to decide a tradition is bad. It works the exact other way around: you need to prove a tradition is good. If you can provide a good reason why a tradition is a good one, that's great. If you can't, then it should be abandoned. I don't need to provide a reason why the tradition is bad.
This, while true... Is just not how our world works when it comes to "tradition"... I mean, by that logic we could scrap tons of our traditions because they make absolutley no sense, no matter religious or "other"... (Throwing rice at a wedding? What a waste, how dare you! ).
So now there needs to be solid evidence/proof that some tradition is "bad" to stop it, else you won't find enough people that are willing to stop it anyway.
On June 29 2011 16:21 Expurgate wrote: Maybe we should judge this on a scientific evaluation?
Ritual slaughter is slaughter performed according to the dietary codes of Jews or Muslims. Cattle, sheep, or goats are exsanguinated by a throat cut without first being rendered unconscious by preslaughter stunning. Ritual slaughter is exempt from the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of 1978 to protect religious freedom.
Because ritual slaughter is exempt, some plants use cruel methods of restraint, such as suspending a conscious animal by a chain wrapped around one hind limb. In other plants, the animal is held in a restrainer that holds it in an upright position. Whether or not ritual slaughter conforms to the requirements of euthanasia is a controversial question. When ritual slaughter is being evaluated, the variable of restraint method must be separated from the act of throat cutting without prior stunning. Distressful restraint methods mask the animals’ reactions to the cut.
The author designed and operated four state-of-the-art restraint devices that hold cattle and calves in a comfortable upright position during kosher (Jewish; Fig 3) slaughter. To determine whether cattle feel the throat cut, at one plant the author deliberately applied the head restrainer so lightly that the animals could pull their heads out. None of the 10 cattle moved or attempted to pull their heads out. Observations of hundreds of cattle and calves during kosher slaughter indicated that there was a slight quiver when the knife first contacted the throat. Invasion of the cattle’s flight zone by touching its head caused a bigger reaction. In another informal experiment, mature bulls and Holstein cows were gently restrained in a head holder with no body restraint. All of them stood still during the cut and did not appear to feel it. Disturbing the edges of the incision or bumping it against the equipment, however, is likely to cause pain. Observations by the author also indicated that the head must be restrained in such a manner that the incision does not close back over the knife. Cattle and sheep struggle violently if the edges of the incision touch during the cut.
EDIT: TL;DR- Ritual throat cutting seems not to be painful to animals, although poor handling before the process can cause them agitation.
I imagine that the actual cut isn't particularly painful, but that the lack of air would be distressing. If he is able to provide compelling testable evidence that the animals actually aren't bothered by being suffocated to death, then I'd be completely fine with it.
Actually i don't think the animal die from suffocating, he dies because lack of irrigation for his brain. i could be wrong, i'm not entirely sure.
It's a combination of three fatal events occurring: First, blood loss and a loss of blood pressure, which results in blood having a harder time reaching the brain and thus your brain dies. Second, lack of oxygen being provided to the lungs, since the animal cannot breathe, which lowers the amount of oxygen in the blood, which also results in brain death. Thirdly, blood would slowly fill the animals lungs, which is essentially drowning.
Which one they actually die of depends on the exact angle and depth of the cut, but the animal would still suffocate for at least a brief period of time.
It is possible that the animal is unable to register that fact until they are already out, in which case it would be just as acceptable, but this has not been sufficiently shown yet.
Just to clarify, were talking about the comfort of pigs,cows, etc. right?
I don't understand how this is an issue.
They are pigs, cows,etc. If the farmer owns them, then he can do whatever he wants with his property.
I have trouble understanding why the method of killing animals for food needs to be conducive to the animals comfort. As long as it is sanitary and there will be no epidemics then there should not be an issue.
On June 29 2011 16:28 Whitewing wrote: ........The scientific method is not about disproving things. You don't need to decide a tradition is bad. It works the exact other way around: you need to prove a tradition is good. If you can provide a good reason why a tradition is a good one, that's great. If you can't, then it should be abandoned. I don't need to provide a reason why the tradition is bad.
This, while true... Is just not how our world works when it comes to "tradition"... I mean, by that logic we could scrap tons of our traditions because they make absolutley no sense, no matter religious or "other"... (Throwing rice at a wedding? What a waste, how dare you! ).
So now there needs to be solid evidence/proof that some tradition is "bad" to stop it, else you won't find enough people that are willing to stop it anyway.
Right, but we're not dealing with how the world actually works, we're dealing with how it should work with this particular discussion.
Throwing rice at a wedding might have a good reason: it's fun to do, and people enjoy it. Since it doesn't actually harm anyone beyond having to clean up the rice, there's no ramifications that outweigh the benefits of people enjoying it, so it's an okay one. Sure, it's kind of pointless really, but one could make the argument that there's a good reason for it.
You're correct in the sense that most people don't understand what it means to be rational, so to actually make an effective change you probably will have to attempt to disprove it.
I can't agree, if the tradition is proven neutral, it shouldn't be abandoned. It doesn't has to be good. a bad/wrong tradition sould be abandoned, i'm ok with it.
I think you'd be hard pressed to come with a tradition that actually qualifies as completely net neutral, assuming you can quantify it, but that's a whole other discussion that's surprisingly a lot more complex than it looks like on the face of it. You are right though, if it is proven to be net neutral or not harmful, there's nothing wrong with it really.
On June 29 2011 16:37 Corvette wrote: Just to clarify, were talking about the comfort of pigs,cows, etc. right?
I don't understand how this is an issue.
They are pigs, cows,etc. If the farmer owns them, then he can do whatever he wants with his property.
I have trouble understanding why the method of killing animals for food needs to be conducive to the animals comfort. As long as it is sanitary and there will be no epidemics then there should not be an issue.
In Switzerland for instance.. Animals are not "things" anymore, they are Animals before the law. Animals have mor rights than "things", so for instance torturing them is forbidden. Halal/Kosher butchering can be called "torturous" to the animal, so it's forbidden.
Btw: Sometimes this law makes for downright stupid rulings, sometimes i like it...
On June 29 2011 16:28 Whitewing wrote: ........The scientific method is not about disproving things. You don't need to decide a tradition is bad. It works the exact other way around: you need to prove a tradition is good. If you can provide a good reason why a tradition is a good one, that's great. If you can't, then it should be abandoned. I don't need to provide a reason why the tradition is bad.
This, while true... Is just not how our world works when it comes to "tradition"... I mean, by that logic we could scrap tons of our traditions because they make absolutley no sense, no matter religious or "other"... (Throwing rice at a wedding? What a waste, how dare you! ).
So now there needs to be solid evidence/proof that some tradition is "bad" to stop it, else you won't find enough people that are willing to stop it anyway.
Right, but we're not dealing with how the world actually works, we're dealing with how it should work with this particular discussion.
Throwing rice at a wedding might have a good reason: it's fun to do, and people enjoy it. Since it doesn't actually harm anyone beyond having to clean up the rice, there's no ramifications that outweigh the benefits of people enjoying it, so it's an okay one. Sure, it's kind of pointless really, but one could make the argument that there's a good reason for it.
You're correct in the sense that most people don't understand what it means to be rational, so to actually make an effective change you probably will have to attempt to disprove it.
I can't agree, if the tradition is proven neutral, it shouldn't be abandoned. It doesn't has to be good. a bad/wrong tradition sould be abandoned, i'm ok with it.
I think you'd be hard pressed to come with a tradition that actually qualifies as completely net neutral, assuming you can quantify it, but that's a whole other discussion that's surprisingly a lot more complex than it looks like on the face of it. You are right though, if it is proven to be net neutral or not harmful, there's nothing wrong with it really.
Nevermind, I'm wrong haha. Rice is harmless.
But on topic, I feel that banning it outright is offensive to those cultures. Instead, set up an inspection system like the U.S. has had in mind for the past 80 years that involves personally determining whether or not the individual entity has the resources to comfort the animal in the religious practice. If not, then take their license away.
Banning it across the board seems intolerant to me.
On June 29 2011 16:28 Whitewing wrote: ........The scientific method is not about disproving things. You don't need to decide a tradition is bad. It works the exact other way around: you need to prove a tradition is good. If you can provide a good reason why a tradition is a good one, that's great. If you can't, then it should be abandoned. I don't need to provide a reason why the tradition is bad.
This, while true... Is just not how our world works when it comes to "tradition"... I mean, by that logic we could scrap tons of our traditions because they make absolutley no sense, no matter religious or "other"... (Throwing rice at a wedding? What a waste, how dare you! ).
So now there needs to be solid evidence/proof that some tradition is "bad" to stop it, else you won't find enough people that are willing to stop it anyway.
Right, but we're not dealing with how the world actually works, we're dealing with how it should work with this particular discussion.
Throwing rice at a wedding might have a good reason: it's fun to do, and people enjoy it. Since it doesn't actually harm anyone beyond having to clean up the rice, there's no ramifications that outweigh the benefits of people enjoying it, so it's an okay one. Sure, it's kind of pointless really, but one could make the argument that there's a good reason for it.
You're correct in the sense that most people don't understand what it means to be rational, so to actually make an effective change you probably will have to attempt to disprove it.
I can't agree, if the tradition is proven neutral, it shouldn't be abandoned. It doesn't has to be good. a bad/wrong tradition sould be abandoned, i'm ok with it.
I think you'd be hard pressed to come with a tradition that actually qualifies as completely net neutral, assuming you can quantify it, but that's a whole other discussion that's surprisingly a lot more complex than it looks like on the face of it. You are right though, if it is proven to be net neutral or not harmful, there's nothing wrong with it really.
Well, i can give you many religious tradition that are neutral. It's not really a problem. Like Shabbat for Jewish, praying in mosquee for islamic people, etc. If a tradition is not proven bad/wrong/harmfull you can't judge it, most of religious traditions make people happier and are neutral, and the traditions that are proven wrong often slowly disappear with time.
And back to the topic, we don't have any scientific survey who prove that hallal/kashor is wrong. So you can't judge it. And like many people said it before, the conditions of living for this animals are way more important.
On June 29 2011 16:37 Corvette wrote: Just to clarify, were talking about the comfort of pigs,cows, etc. right?
I don't understand how this is an issue.
They are pigs, cows,etc. If the farmer owns them, then he can do whatever he wants with his property.
I have trouble understanding why the method of killing animals for food needs to be conducive to the animals comfort. As long as it is sanitary and there will be no epidemics then there should not be an issue.
Traditions. This is what people believe needs to be done for their gods here, people. And it's not like a slit neck is a slow and painful death if done right.
On June 29 2011 16:52 ampson wrote: Traditions. This is what people believe needs to be done for their gods here, people. And it's not like a slit neck is a slow and painful death if done right.
well... if ur religion tells you to slit the throat of an animal, otherwise ur not allowed to eat it you have a pretty dumb religion T_T. No offense to any muslims and jews but in my opinion Religion is very very outdated and doesn't bring much good too this world (same goes for Christianity and the rest dont worry).
I voted for religious and cultural values. At the end of the day animals are still animals while I think cultural values should always be respected. As an international law student and as a person exposed to many different cultures through my travels and my friends, I am really against the cultural intolerance of so-called liberal western viewpoints that presume a moral highground and treat anything different with orientalism. One example is animal rights, and another is human rights. I think established cultures should have the right, subject to international law and custom, to govern themselves free of criticism from other prejudiced nations. Traditionally, the Netherlands has been a country that is both generally ignorant and very intolerant of Islamic values, and has voiced its objection to such regularly on the international stage.
However, I think it is free to legislate as it wishes, but I certainly do not respect its insularity.
On June 29 2011 16:28 Whitewing wrote: ........The scientific method is not about disproving things. You don't need to decide a tradition is bad. It works the exact other way around: you need to prove a tradition is good. If you can provide a good reason why a tradition is a good one, that's great. If you can't, then it should be abandoned. I don't need to provide a reason why the tradition is bad.
This, while true... Is just not how our world works when it comes to "tradition"... I mean, by that logic we could scrap tons of our traditions because they make absolutley no sense, no matter religious or "other"... (Throwing rice at a wedding? What a waste, how dare you! ).
So now there needs to be solid evidence/proof that some tradition is "bad" to stop it, else you won't find enough people that are willing to stop it anyway.
Right, but we're not dealing with how the world actually works, we're dealing with how it should work with this particular discussion.
Throwing rice at a wedding might have a good reason: it's fun to do, and people enjoy it. Since it doesn't actually harm anyone beyond having to clean up the rice, there's no ramifications that outweigh the benefits of people enjoying it, so it's an okay one. Sure, it's kind of pointless really, but one could make the argument that there's a good reason for it.
You're correct in the sense that most people don't understand what it means to be rational, so to actually make an effective change you probably will have to attempt to disprove it.
I can't agree, if the tradition is proven neutral, it shouldn't be abandoned. It doesn't has to be good. a bad/wrong tradition sould be abandoned, i'm ok with it.
I think you'd be hard pressed to come with a tradition that actually qualifies as completely net neutral, assuming you can quantify it, but that's a whole other discussion that's surprisingly a lot more complex than it looks like on the face of it. You are right though, if it is proven to be net neutral or not harmful, there's nothing wrong with it really.
Well, i can give you many religious tradition that are neutral. It's not really a problem. Like Shabbat for Jewish, praying in mosquee for islamic people, etc. If a tradition is not proven bad/wrong/harmfull you can't judge it, most of religious traditions make people happier and are neutral, and the traditions that are proven wrong often slowly disappear with time.
And back to the topic, we don't have any scientific survey who prove that hallal/kashor is wrong. So you can't judge it. And like many people said it before, the conditions of living for this animals are way more important.
*Ugh* I thought we just got past this >_<.
You don't need to prove something is harmful or bad, logic and science doesn't work that way. Rather, the people who do it have the burden of proving it is good to do it, or at least that it's not harmful to do it.
I can give at least 10 reasons off the top of my head why those traditions you just mentioned are net harmful, but that's outside the scope of this thread.
Also, the idea that you can't judge something unless you are able to prove that it is bad is wrong as well, you certainly can judge something without knowing with certainty that it's not good.
On June 29 2011 16:28 Whitewing wrote: ........The scientific method is not about disproving things. You don't need to decide a tradition is bad. It works the exact other way around: you need to prove a tradition is good. If you can provide a good reason why a tradition is a good one, that's great. If you can't, then it should be abandoned. I don't need to provide a reason why the tradition is bad.
This, while true... Is just not how our world works when it comes to "tradition"... I mean, by that logic we could scrap tons of our traditions because they make absolutley no sense, no matter religious or "other"... (Throwing rice at a wedding? What a waste, how dare you! ).
So now there needs to be solid evidence/proof that some tradition is "bad" to stop it, else you won't find enough people that are willing to stop it anyway.
Right, but we're not dealing with how the world actually works, we're dealing with how it should work with this particular discussion.
Throwing rice at a wedding might have a good reason: it's fun to do, and people enjoy it. Since it doesn't actually harm anyone beyond having to clean up the rice, there's no ramifications that outweigh the benefits of people enjoying it, so it's an okay one. Sure, it's kind of pointless really, but one could make the argument that there's a good reason for it.
You're correct in the sense that most people don't understand what it means to be rational, so to actually make an effective change you probably will have to attempt to disprove it.
I can't agree, if the tradition is proven neutral, it shouldn't be abandoned. It doesn't has to be good. a bad/wrong tradition sould be abandoned, i'm ok with it.
I think you'd be hard pressed to come with a tradition that actually qualifies as completely net neutral, assuming you can quantify it, but that's a whole other discussion that's surprisingly a lot more complex than it looks like on the face of it. You are right though, if it is proven to be net neutral or not harmful, there's nothing wrong with it really.
Well, i can give you many religious tradition that are neutral. It's not really a problem. Like Shabbat for Jewish, praying in mosquee for islamic people, etc. If a tradition is not proven bad/wrong/harmfull you can't judge it, most of religious traditions make people happier and are neutral, and the traditions that are proven wrong often slowly disappear with time.
And back to the topic, we don't have any scientific survey who prove that hallal/kashor is wrong. So you can't judge it. And like many people said it before, the conditions of living for this animals are way more important.
*Ugh* I thought we just got past this >_<.
You don't need to prove something is harmful or bad, logic and science doesn't work that way. Rather, the people who do it have the burden of proving it is good to do it, or at least that it's not harmful to do it.
I can give at least 10 reasons off the top of my head why those traditions you just mentioned are net harmful, but that's outside the scope of this thread.
Also, the idea that you can't judge something unless you are able to prove that it is bad is wrong as well, you certainly can judge something without knowing with certainty that it's not good.
I have to tell you something, i was ironic about me not knowing science, i actually studied maths and physics in university. So you can stop with your scientific arguments, i think you are too mentally blocked about religion, so let's stop this discussion.
On June 29 2011 17:02 tyCe wrote: Traditionally, the Netherlands has been a country that is both generally ignorant and very intolerant of Islamic values, and has voiced its objection to such regularly on the international stage.
Wow, describing the Netherlands as a generally ignorant and intolerant country? That's new.
On June 29 2011 16:52 ampson wrote: Traditions. This is what people believe needs to be done for their gods here, people. And it's not like a slit neck is a slow and painful death if done right.
well... if ur religion tells you to slit the throat of an animal, otherwise ur not allowed to eat it you have a pretty dumb religion T_T. No offense to any muslims and jews but in my opinion Religion is very very outdated and doesn't bring much good too this world (same goes for Christianity and the rest dont worry).
That is your view and many others. I am not a Muslim but I understand to some degree the significance of Islamic beliefs and laws to Muslims. Islamic laws and norms have a divine source. They are not made by man but by God, and so it is not for you or me to question their validity or appropriateness. Indeed, most secular law systems in the western world have their laws sourced in Christianity, and if you take the cultural viewpoint of a devout Muslim, many people in such countries like Australia behave like complete criminals.
I don't it is fair for a country to say: okay, your religion, which is shared by people of over a billion people, is completely stupid, and we're going to ban or make it really difficult for you to do some of your most important practices. Indeed, I would say that to do that would be completely discriminatory. What are Muslims going to do then? Either break a divine law and be punished by God or to follow their Islamic norms and be viewed as barbarians by socIety. That is not a fair position to be put in.
Ultimately, it is a question of values in the matter of governance. Will it be tolerance and multiculturalism, or intolerance and monoculture, perhaps even the unrestricted triumph of the majority over the minority. Sometimes democracy sucks because it ultimately leads to oppression of the minority. That's when the government comes in to provide common sense, but when a government acts the same way... Well, I wouldn't want to be in a minority group there, that's for sure.
On June 29 2011 16:52 ampson wrote: Traditions. This is what people believe needs to be done for their gods here, people. And it's not like a slit neck is a slow and painful death if done right.
well... if ur religion tells you to slit the throat of an animal, otherwise ur not allowed to eat it you have a pretty dumb religion T_T. No offense to any muslims and jews but in my opinion Religion is very very outdated and doesn't bring much good too this world (same goes for Christianity and the rest dont worry).
That is your view and many others. I am not a Muslim but I understand to some degree the significance of Islamic beliefs and laws to Muslims. Islamic laws and norms have a divine source. They are not made by man but by God, and so it is not for you or me to question their validity or appropriateness. Indeed, most secular law systems in the western world have their laws sourced in Christianity, and if you take the cultural viewpoint of a devout Muslim, many people in such countries like Australia behave like complete criminals.
I don't it is fair for a country to say: okay, your religion, which is shared by people of over a billion people, is completely stupid, and we're going to ban or make it really difficult for you to do some of your most important practices. Indeed, I would say that to do that would be completely discriminatory. What are Muslims going to do then? Either break a divine law and be punished by God or to follow their Islamic norms and be viewed as barbarians by socIety. That is not a fair position to be put in.
Ultimately, it is a question of values in the matter of governance. Will it be tolerance and multiculturalism, or intolerance and monoculture, perhaps even the unrestricted triumph of the majority over the minority. Sometimes democracy sucks because it ultimately leads to oppression of the minority. That's when the government comes in to provide common sense, but when a government acts the same way... Well, I wouldn't want to be in a minority group there, that's for sure.
Bullshit, it 100% is his right to question it, because they have absolutely not a single shred of evidence or proof to back up their claim of it being a command from god. It's all a hoax, and they have no proof otherwise. Since they can't actually show that what they claim is true, or even provide evidence in that direction, it is completely acceptable for him to question its validity, in fact, it's the right thing to do for him to question its validity.
The moment we stop asking questions is the moment humanity dies.
Ask questions, especially when it comes to concepts without any actual evidence or proof.
On June 29 2011 17:02 tyCe wrote: Traditionally, the Netherlands has been a country that is both generally ignorant and very intolerant of Islamic values, and has voiced its objection to such regularly on the international stage.
Wow, describing the Netherlands as a generally ignorant and intolerant country? That's new.
Its been moving that way for the last few years, though its rather exaggerated. Mr. Wilders gets too much time in the spotlight.
On topic; I think a properly executed kosher/halal slaughter is no different then regular slaughtering. Somehow the Animal Party has managed to convince a majority in the Dutch parliament that these traditional methods of slaughter are 'inhumane' / 'abusive to animals' or whatever.
On June 29 2011 17:16 tyCe wrote: Indeed, most secular law systems in the western world have their laws sourced in Christianity
I'm just going to stop you there and point out that most legal systems, are, in fact, not at all based on Christianity, and in fact mainly originated in Rome c500 BCE.
LOL. I thought it was "Baneling halal" instead and was wondering why this was in General and not in StarCraft 2
I could not care less about how they butcher their animals. I can understand vegans talking about animal rights - not that I agree in any way, I love my meat - but I think this is just stretching too far.
On June 29 2011 16:52 ampson wrote: Traditions. This is what people believe needs to be done for their gods here, people. And it's not like a slit neck is a slow and painful death if done right.
well... if ur religion tells you to slit the throat of an animal, otherwise ur not allowed to eat it you have a pretty dumb religion T_T. No offense to any muslims and jews but in my opinion Religion is very very outdated and doesn't bring much good too this world (same goes for Christianity and the rest dont worry).
You just missed the basic point of religion all together, and based your point on a circular argument: Religion is invalid, therefor it makes no sense to practice it, therefor religion is invalid.
Saying that religious people should stop believing in religion is like saying to the sheep on the field that they should stop caring about the sheepherder – No matter if you believe in him, his is still gonna be there, controlling life, death and everything in between.
The basic religious argument might be logically invalid in your eyes, but that is simply because you presume that there is no God, until you accept that religious people know for certain that there is a God just as sure as the sheep know about the sheepherder, you are not going to understand religion.
That is also why this poll is totally biased. If you know that there is an all-powerfull being giving you orders, that created both you and the animals, then there really is no question of wether you follow orders or not.
On June 29 2011 16:52 ampson wrote: Traditions. This is what people believe needs to be done for their gods here, people. And it's not like a slit neck is a slow and painful death if done right.
well... if ur religion tells you to slit the throat of an animal, otherwise ur not allowed to eat it you have a pretty dumb religion T_T. No offense to any muslims and jews but in my opinion Religion is very very outdated and doesn't bring much good too this world (same goes for Christianity and the rest dont worry).
You just missed the basic point of religion all together, and based your point on a circular argument: Religion is invalid, therefor it makes no sense to practice it, therefor religion is invalid.
Saying that religious people should stop believing in religion is like saying to the sheep on the field that they should stop caring about the sheepherder – No matter if you believe in him, his is still gonna be there, controlling life, death and everything in between.
The basic religious argument might be logically invalid in your eyes, but that is simply because you presume that there is no God, until you accept that religious people know for certain that there is a God just as sure as the sheep know about the sheepherder, you are not going to understand religion.
That is also why this poll is totally biased. If you know that there is an all-powerfull being giving you orders, that created both you and the animals, then there really is no question of wether you follow orders or not.
Except that they don't know jack shit. They believe, with no evidence or facts to support it. They think there is a god, and behave as if there is one, but they have no proof or logical reason for that belief, they just believe because they want to, which is beyond stupid.
The purpose of the poll however, is to ask how people feel about forcing them to adhere to federal laws an regulations and no longer give them an exemption due to their religion.
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.
i gotta agree with this here, and as much as i support animal rights i support the right to religious practices more.
I don't exactly know if what I'm about to say is true, but a classmate of mine brought this up, and I think it's certainly plausible. He said: "At the time the Koran and the Thora (i think it is?) were written it was thought that by killing the animals the prescribed way was the most humane way to do so."
I don't know if that's true at all, but it does make sense to me. Does it not go against the core of Jewish/Muslim believes to decrease a live being's suffering as much as possible?
I'm sorry if there are any English mistakes in this post. I am not a native speaker.
I'm sorry but I don't understand why there's even a discussion about this.
I'm not a vegetarian or a animal-rights kind of guy but I grew up with animals and for me this is a simple question of common sense.
Tradition is good as long as long as you take it with a bit of common sense. If you wanna bleed out your animals while they're still alive, stun them give them a drug or whatever. There's no freaking argument that any person in their right mind can make for cutting the throat of a concious animal to bleed it out over cutting the throat of an unconcious one.
Even if you're talking about religious tolerance, this discussion isn't about not tolerating a religion but simply about how far a government can intrude on the practices of a religion.
I'm neither jewish nor a muslim, so I don't know the exact fomulation of their laws, but after reading up on them they talk about healthy living animals, not concious ones. The "normal" methods of stunning the animal or rendering it unconcious are forbidden because they would cause injuries that would result in death anyways or would render the animal unkosher by some reason.
What I'm getting at is simple: There are reasons 'we' kill the animals we eat as we do. It's because it's not painful and the animals are rendered unconcious instantly or at least without inducing panic. If Jews and Muslims want to follow their traditions they're long overdue to search for a method that has the same effect withour breaking and of their religious laws.
Think about what you'd feel like of someone slit your throat open and you'd not be able to breathe and slowly just "stop". Pain or not, 30 seconds or 10 minutes... I don't wish that to anyone or anything
TL:DR: By religious law there's no need to kill the animals while they're concious therefore this is no discussion about being intolerant, but one about being inconvenient in the sense of 'we'll have to adjust out way of doing things'
On June 29 2011 16:52 ampson wrote: Traditions. This is what people believe needs to be done for their gods here, people. And it's not like a slit neck is a slow and painful death if done right.
well... if ur religion tells you to slit the throat of an animal, otherwise ur not allowed to eat it you have a pretty dumb religion T_T. No offense to any muslims and jews but in my opinion Religion is very very outdated and doesn't bring much good too this world (same goes for Christianity and the rest dont worry).
many people here dismiss this tradition simply by saying the source is religious and giving it no further thought. the source for this tradition is not religoius rather than the tradition is religious. Looking for the source you will not find "religion" as that is where you start but you will find "Animal Rights". thats what this tradition is. It originated to offer less suffering to the animal.
Now, you may say that in today's world there are more humane ways to butcher an animal and you may have a valid point but coming out dismissing something without really knowing what its about strikes me a bit odd.
While ones view against Kosher butchering might be the right one its a shame that the thought process that brought him to that conclusion is a wrong one.
*Note that I am only refering to a part of those who oppose and not the whole.
On June 29 2011 18:25 nucleo wrote: many people here dismiss this tradition simply by saying the source is religious and giving it no further thought. the source for this tradition is not religoius rather than the tradition is religious. Looking for the source you will not find "religion" as that is where you start but you will find "Animal Rights". thats what this tradition is. It originated to offer less suffering to the animal.
Now, you may say that in today's world there are more humane ways to butcher an animal and you may have a valid point but coming out dismissing something without really knowing what its about strikes me a bit odd.
While ones view against Kosher butchering might be the right one its a shame that the thought process that brought him to that conclusion is a wrong one.
*Note that I am only refering to a part of those who oppose and not the whole.
The origins are irrelevant, what matters is why people do it NOW, at this point in time. The answer to that, is because their religion tells them too. Way back, it might have had a good reason. Now? Probably not so much, which means that they should abandon the practice, now that it is outdated.
this entire argument seems very weird. people act like slaughtering animals without any religious methods is a pleasant thing for the animal. the traditional methods have the same problems since we don't really know much about how the animal feels pain during. for that reason i think the argument that the animal is hurting is a double edged sword. the animal may also be suffering (less or more) with a more traditional approach. people don't seem to have a problem with cutting the head of a chicken for instance, even though its running around headless for a while before dying. I dunno, seems to be lot of hypocrisy in this thread.
Instead we should concentrate on the living conditions for the animals as this is way easier to determine what is ethical here.
Ahm.. We narcotise (bigger) animals before we shoot them in the head with a Boltgun... No, thats not painfull in any way. The dead comes very quick and theire narcotised...
On June 29 2011 18:25 nucleo wrote: many people here dismiss this tradition simply by saying the source is religious and giving it no further thought. the source for this tradition is not religoius rather than the tradition is religious. Looking for the source you will not find "religion" as that is where you start but you will find "Animal Rights". thats what this tradition is. It originated to offer less suffering to the animal.
Now, you may say that in today's world there are more humane ways to butcher an animal and you may have a valid point but coming out dismissing something without really knowing what its about strikes me a bit odd.
While ones view against Kosher butchering might be the right one its a shame that the thought process that brought him to that conclusion is a wrong one.
*Note that I am only refering to a part of those who oppose and not the whole.
The origins are irrelevant, what matters is why people do it NOW, at this point in time. The answer to that, is because their religion tells them too. Way back, it might have had a good reason. Now? Probably not so much, which means that they should abandon the practice, now that it is outdated.
You both actually raise good and valid points.
First we need to consider the level of scientific knowlege and the spead of education amongst primitive (ancient) cultures. Typically it was only the noble class and the priesthood who could afford any form of education beyond basic trades. Nobles in general were more concerned with forms of education concerning government, warfare, civil management, engineering & construction etc. The Priesthood were more concerned with the sciences of nature, astrology, astronomy & medicine. Of course they didnt understand it as "science" exactly, but they DID take something, observe it, question it, perform experiments (informally & with no scientific processes) and come to (often) well reasoned conclusions...
With regard to the Jewish prohibition to not eat pork for example... in ancient days with a lack of proper veterinary care or food processing/preserving techniques, Pork was a very unsanitary meat. Pigs were often riddled with parasites and eating any Pig product did quite often result in illness. The cascade effect (thanks to primitive medicine) was that the illness would lead to insanity, disability and even death. Therefore, we had a group of priest who knew that eating pork was bad for you. How would they convince thier followers that they should stop ? By "educating the masses" ? No, they were priests, so they simply preached that it was a commandment from God to eat no Pork. Many obeyed and strangely enough (miraculously) people didnt get sick as often... The fact that the success of this "new" prohibition raised the image of the priests with the citizenry and Nobles (thus increasing thier temporal/political power/credibility) may have helped too
This is one example where a "scientific" discovery worked for the benefit of a civilisation and was discovered, diseminated and enforced by a religeous order. You can examine many other "religeous laws" and find that they had a lot of common sense for the society at the time (and for the years to come).
For example Kosher Butchering may have been an "Animal Kindness" measure (in a time where there ws no RSPCA), Muslim "discrimination" against women may have been a needed social measure to prevent outragous abuses that were even worse at the time. Even the much vaunted "10 Commandments" make sense when viewed as a set of general guidlines for the behaviour of a "civilised" society.
Once again, the preisthood could not feasably "educate" the ignorant citizens of those ancient civilizations, they had no scientific procedure as we know it and could probably barely explain the reasons for thier own rules in a truely academic manner (No academic/scholarly journals around back then either). Therfore they had to couch their "commandments" as a message from God, which was not only accepted by the supersticious people of the time, but when the Preists were proven right, their influence rose and ensured they would continue to enjoy the political power they held (and ensure future "Commandments and revelations would be heeded).
Dont forget that after the great black plague and the following Dark age... it was the church who preserved the knowlege of the previous ages !
On June 29 2011 16:52 ampson wrote: Traditions. This is what people believe needs to be done for their gods here, people. And it's not like a slit neck is a slow and painful death if done right.
well... if ur religion tells you to slit the throat of an animal, otherwise ur not allowed to eat it you have a pretty dumb religion T_T. No offense to any muslims and jews but in my opinion Religion is very very outdated and doesn't bring much good too this world (same goes for Christianity and the rest dont worry).
You just missed the basic point of religion all together, and based your point on a circular argument: Religion is invalid, therefor it makes no sense to practice it, therefor religion is invalid.
Saying that religious people should stop believing in religion is like saying to the sheep on the field that they should stop caring about the sheepherder – No matter if you believe in him, his is still gonna be there, controlling life, death and everything in between.
The basic religious argument might be logically invalid in your eyes, but that is simply because you presume that there is no God, until you accept that religious people know for certain that there is a God just as sure as the sheep know about the sheepherder, you are not going to understand religion.
That is also why this poll is totally biased. If you know that there is an all-powerfull being giving you orders, that created both you and the animals, then there really is no question of wether you follow orders or not.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but people don't 'know' there is a god. You cannot know if there is a god. For example, even if the story of Mozes was true and he really encountered a bush on fire that spoke to him, that does not somehow imply a divine creator.
And by the way, the sheep know about the sheepherder because they can touch him, they can smell him and they can see him. Not to mention they can see the sheepherders influence on the world. Empirical evidence. A sheep can prove the sheepherder is real (if the sheep had sufficient intelligence). A person cannot prove God is real. "Because I said so" is not a valid argument, nor is it evidence of anything.
It strikes me just now that there are actually a lot of people who not only consider it absurd to view a particular law as too unminimalistic, but who regard it as absurd that the law should be minimalistic in the first place. That would be a critical underlying issue here.
That said the law is certainly overextended in my view when it assumes the role of protecting the rights of lesser animals. Although the explanation of such carnal principles is often seen as grotesque, their understanding is nonetheless crucial: People are unique in that they're so productive in life, so productive that one person is almost always more valuable to another alive than dead. This principle is the reason we have laws, to ensure that people who don't make themselves the exception by threatening the lives or property of other people, can live in peace, to benefit maximally from each other's simultaneous living. The lesser animals however are very often as useful to us even in their highest potential dead as alive, simply because they do so little in the course of their lives that it very often fails to outweigh their value as food.
Animals are far too worthless to actually act as members of a society in any meaningful way. Whatever you would say of their contributions in life, none of them are up to par with those of a citizen. Whatever you may say about the immorality of torturing animals, they are not members of society and therefore do not get to have rights. Their protection could only be argued to benefit those human beings who are a part of society, before going beyond the purpose of law. Even if it did benefit human beings it would be so slightly that the negative affects inherent in inflating the domain of law would be highly doubtfully worth it.
The law, afterall, isn't a tool of justice that can be abused without consequence. If all you want to do is bring about justice, you do not really need the law's assistance. You can act within the law to persuade others peacefully to embrace your morality willingly, instead of trying to cram it down their throats. If you succeed in empowering the government to do that for you, you of course also empower the government to do it for other people to you. That is why the government must be minimal. Its only purpose is as a centralized power that can do things scattered individual powers can't do, some of which things are better done, most of which powers are better scattered.
All of the above brings us to modern day. Religion is entrenched in our society thanks to thousands of years of the preists being "right" The churches also enjoy phenominal wealth thanks to being (in effect) the largest and longest existing "corporations" in existance.
We DO live in an "age of reason" thanks to the rise of the scientific method and the discoveries that have been made, but this rise of science has not eliminated the human need to "believe" in something. Religion fills the gap for so many people despite the empyrical evidence that the concept of a God or Power is a crock and also despite the scientific evidence that many of the "facts" espoused by religion are blatent lies. (eg Jesus born on Dec 25th, World only 4000yrs old etc)
Why do they still ignore the "science" and embrace the "faith" (and the rules of that faith) ?
For some it is simply due to inertia. If the whole of your society follows the faith (or just the whole of your family/community) then it is "normal" for you to also follow the faith (and pass it on to your children)
For others who "Find the faith" but dont come from a religeous background, it could be because they have become somehow dissatisfied with the "reality" they live in and spiritually need more to be happy. So they reach out to a "social club" that can help fulfil thier need explain their unhappyness. In many cases that social club is Church. Of course, it would be kinda silly to join a religeon and not embrace all of it's rules (even those that have no validity in modern society such as sex discrimination, animal butchering or pork prohibition) as that would indicate you didnt "really truely" believe in the faith and therefor you wouldnt gain the "spiritual" relief you were after in the first place...
Next we must consider why Churches continue to spout blatent untruths in the face of scientific contradictory evidence. This is an easy one, if the Church gained its power from being proven right, then it stands to reason it would loose its credibility if it admits it is wrong, so it must "manage" how and when it will relax a law. And some religeous laws are STILL valid today despite flying in the face of popular preferences (take the Catholic Churches views on sex and marriage for example. If marriage was truely for life, and sex was truely only for married couples, then society would look diferent than it does now... less...decadent)
On June 29 2011 19:16 zobz wrote: Animals are far too worthless to actually act as members of a society in any meaningful way. Whatever you would say of their contributions in life, none of them are up to par with those of a citizen. Whatever you may say about the immorality of torturing animals, they are not members of society and therefore do not get to have rights. Their protection could only be argued to benefit those human beings who are a part of society, before going beyond the purpose of law. Even if it did benefit human beings it would be so slightly that the negative affects inherent in inflating the domain of law would be highly doubtfully worth it.
And here you are just wrong.
In some/many countries, Animals in fact have rights. No matter if you think thats idiotic or not, they have because people wanted it (i myself find it a little puzzling but well...).
Especially this reasoning:
Animals are far too worthless to actually act as members of a society in any meaningful way.
is just not thought out... With that reasoning i could also declare certain Humans as not being "good enough" to have rights (seriously handicapped people... or just people whiteout a job that drain the social system.... Or people that don't give money to charity... It's way to open...). I would even go as far and say that "some" Animals are more "members" of our society or at least the social enviorment of their owners than many humans.
The only "real" reasoning to disregard all animal rights, is that Aaimals aren't humans.
On June 29 2011 17:16 tyCe wrote: That is your view and many others. I am not a Muslim but I understand to some degree the significance of Islamic beliefs and laws to Muslims. Islamic laws and norms have a divine source. They are not made by man but by God, and so it is not for you or me to question their validity or appropriateness.
This is really stupid. There are lots of religious beliefs and practices that are incompatible with various human rights. Whether you believe they have a divine source or not, they have no place in modern liberal societies.
On June 29 2011 16:52 ampson wrote: Traditions. This is what people believe needs to be done for their gods here, people. And it's not like a slit neck is a slow and painful death if done right.
well... if ur religion tells you to slit the throat of an animal, otherwise ur not allowed to eat it you have a pretty dumb religion T_T. No offense to any muslims and jews but in my opinion Religion is very very outdated and doesn't bring much good too this world (same goes for Christianity and the rest dont worry).
You just missed the basic point of religion all together, and based your point on a circular argument: Religion is invalid, therefor it makes no sense to practice it, therefor religion is invalid.
Saying that religious people should stop believing in religion is like saying to the sheep on the field that they should stop caring about the sheepherder – No matter if you believe in him, his is still gonna be there, controlling life, death and everything in between.
The basic religious argument might be logically invalid in your eyes, but that is simply because you presume that there is no God, until you accept that religious people know for certain that there is a God just as sure as the sheep know about the sheepherder, you are not going to understand religion.
That is also why this poll is totally biased. If you know that there is an all-powerfull being giving you orders, that created both you and the animals, then there really is no question of wether you follow orders or not.
I am completely aware of this to be honest, and I also respect their beliefs, but too a certain degree. Being religious doesn't mean you are allowed to do stuff which is considered wrong or inhumane in a society even if it goes against the beliefs of ur religion.
It strikes me just now that there are actually a lot of people who not only consider it absurd to view a particular law as too unminimalistic, but who regard it as absurd that the law should be minimalistic in the first place. That would be a critical underlying issue here.
That said the law is certainly overextended in my view when it assumes the role of protecting the rights of lesser animals. Although the explanation of such carnal principles is often seen as grotesque, their understanding is nonetheless crucial: People are unique in that they're so productive in life, so productive that one person is almost always more valuable to another alive than dead. This principle is the reason we have laws, to ensure that people who don't make themselves the exception by threatening the lives or property of other people, can live in peace, to benefit maximally from each other's simultaneous living. The lesser animals however are very often as useful to us even in their highest potential dead as alive, simply because they do so little in the course of their lives that it very often fails to outweigh their value as food.
Animals are far too worthless to actually act as members of a society in any meaningful way. Whatever you would say of their contributions in life, none of them are up to par with those of a citizen. Whatever you may say about the immorality of torturing animals, they are not members of society and therefore do not get to have rights. Their protection could only be argued to benefit those human beings who are a part of society, before going beyond the purpose of law. Even if it did benefit human beings it would be so slightly that the negative affects inherent in inflating the domain of law would be highly doubtfully worth it.
The law, afterall, isn't a tool of justice that can be abused without consequence. If all you want to do is bring about justice, you do not really need the law's assistance. You can act within the law to persuade others peacefully to embrace your morality willingly, instead of trying to cram it down their throats. If you succeed in empowering the government to do that for you, you of course also empower the government to do it for other people to you. That is why the government must be minimal. Its only purpose is as a centralized power that can do things scattered individual powers can't do, some of which things are better done, most of which powers are better scattered.
Don't you think that you're overextending yourself? This isn't about 'not killing animals' or them having any kind of a rights even comparable to those of humans.
Most western governments have already laws that tell us how we're allowed to slaughter animals. They just make exceptions for ritual slaughter.
So all of the above adds up to the fact that churches did provide a very valid civic function in the past built up political power and credibility due to that sevice. They cannot simply "disband" in the face of mounting scientific evidence that their core beliefs are often inccorrect as they still in many areas provide a strong social funtion (charities & good works). Plus no organisation/ entity of power wants to give up its power if it can help it.
People themselves are still joining churches in their droves thanks to inertia, tradition or a spiritual need for faith. These "masses" are still therefore following the rules of their churches (valid or not). This all brings us back to the OP for this thread and the thrust of a lot of argument on this topic.
"Why are (Secular) governments still kowtowing religeous requirements by making exeptions to animal cruelty laws with reagrd to the methods of butchering?"
The answer is -
Because the churches still have a massive amount of political power due to the sheer number of people still involved, They have a massive amount of economic power due to their sheer size and income/assets They have still have a "Fair" amount of military power due to the fact that some whole contries are practically run by thier churches (admitedly this is really only prevalent in the middle east)
Governments NEED to listen to organisations with this much power (Voters, Money,Capacity for inciting unrest). Yes, even if the "message" of the organisation flies in the face of scientific wisdom.
On June 29 2011 17:16 tyCe wrote: That is your view and many others. I am not a Muslim but I understand to some degree the significance of Islamic beliefs and laws to Muslims. Islamic laws and norms have a divine source. They are not made by man but by God, and so it is not for you or me to question their validity or appropriateness.
So if I thought it was okay to be a serial killer because god told me so, government shouldn't stop me?
Sorry, not sure how to put all of them together in three spoilers, but if you read my last three posts in order, you should understand why governments bow to religeous pressure to allow Kosher buthering and other "silly" laws to exist
My posts are pretty long though so there will be a lot of TL;DR people here.
I broke my input up into three posts that were meant to be read back to back but other people posts came in before I finished my three
On June 29 2011 19:46 konadora wrote: religion is too damn important/sensitive in keeping the country and international ties stable, definitely won't happen
That depends extremly on where you live....
I would say it does not even depend on that, it just depends on "cultures" (which are heavily influenced by religion due to history).
Just to point out, the Jewish slaughter laws are meant to accomplish the exact same thing as these Dutch laws. Both render death painless for the animals.
I am an atheist born in a christian family. Therefore i know very little about the jewish/muslim tradition of sacrificing animals. But as an animal lover I find it unhuman to make an animal suffer just because of tradition. I never respect traditions if I am not OK with them.
I still find this whole discussion a display of hypocrisy. We breed these animals to eventually eat them. During their lifetime, they are documented to live in horrible conditions. And, we are fine with all that.
Yet, when it comes to the last few seconds of these animals, we grow a bleeding heart based on inconsistent scientific data, risking to antagonize a relatively large minority group. If anything, this tells me that this ban is in motion just to irritate Muslims, and another step forward to religious intolerance which has been growing at a worrying rate in the Netherlands.
On June 29 2011 19:58 Ghazwan wrote: I still find this whole discussion a display of hypocrisy. We breed these animals to eventually eat them. During their lifetime, they are documented to live in horrible conditions. And, we are fine with all that.
Yet, when it comes to the last few seconds of these animals, we grow a bleeding heart based on inconsistent scientific data, risking to antagonize a relatively large minority group. If anything, this tells me that this ban is in motion just to irritate Muslims, and another step forward to religious intolerance which has been growing at a worrying rate in the Netherlands.
Not all are quite so hypocritical.
In Australia recently there was a feature in one of our major investigative journalism shows (called "60 Minutes") that exposed (on prime time TV) how Indonesia was treating its meat animals.
The public outcry to the brutal treatment has significantly impacted meat export from Australia to Indonesia and the situation is being examined by our politicians.
At no point is the controversy linked to any form of religeous issue, just an animal welfare issue.
It strikes me just now that there are actually a lot of people who not only consider it absurd to view a particular law as too unminimalistic, but who regard it as absurd that the law should be minimalistic in the first place. That would be a critical underlying issue here.
That said the law is certainly overextended in my view when it assumes the role of protecting the rights of lesser animals. Although the explanation of such carnal principles is often seen as grotesque, their understanding is nonetheless crucial: People are unique in that they're so productive in life, so productive that one person is almost always more valuable to another alive than dead. This principle is the reason we have laws, to ensure that people who don't make themselves the exception by threatening the lives or property of other people, can live in peace, to benefit maximally from each other's simultaneous living. The lesser animals however are very often as useful to us even in their highest potential dead as alive, simply because they do so little in the course of their lives that it very often fails to outweigh their value as food.
Animals are far too worthless to actually act as members of a society in any meaningful way. Whatever you would say of their contributions in life, none of them are up to par with those of a citizen. Whatever you may say about the immorality of torturing animals, they are not members of society and therefore do not get to have rights. Their protection could only be argued to benefit those human beings who are a part of society, before going beyond the purpose of law. Even if it did benefit human beings it would be so slightly that the negative affects inherent in inflating the domain of law would be highly doubtfully worth it.
The law, afterall, isn't a tool of justice that can be abused without consequence. If all you want to do is bring about justice, you do not really need the law's assistance. You can act within the law to persuade others peacefully to embrace your morality willingly, instead of trying to cram it down their throats. If you succeed in empowering the government to do that for you, you of course also empower the government to do it for other people to you. That is why the government must be minimal. Its only purpose is as a centralized power that can do things scattered individual powers can't do, some of which things are better done, most of which powers are better scattered.
If you want to be a coldhearted maniac, go ahead, but please keep your bullshit to your fantasies.
Morality does not stop because someone is not part of your group.
I still find this whole discussion a display of hypocrisy. We breed these animals to eventually eat them. During their lifetime, they are documented to live in horrible conditions. And, we are fine with all that.
I invite you to find any statements of people pro animal welfare in this thread in which is stated that animals living in horrible conditions is fine. I eagerly await your response.
On June 29 2011 19:50 Datum wrote: Just to point out, the Jewish slaughter laws are meant to accomplish the exact same thing as these Dutch laws. Both render death painless for the animals.
But they fail to achieve that as research showed. Research clearly demonstrated that ritual slaughtering is animal cruelty.
They can still slit the animals throat, they can still cast their blood magic + 3 magic spell on the corpse they just have to knock the animal out before they start with it.
Again, the first example is of bad halal/kosher practises I'm sure - however, the law enacted has a provision which allows for traditional practises if they are shown not to cause unnecessary pain. Ain't that a win-win? Bad practises are purged out of business, old traditions may still live on and animal welfare is improved.
I'm still kind of flabbergasted how anyone thinks a tradition is worthy of keeping simply because it's a tradition. A tradition being traditional is not an arguement for it, it's simply restating that fact. Those ritualistic aspects of slaughter were first enacted to ensure that people ate fresh meat and avoided rotting meat etc.
Times have changed though and there's really no good reason to follow them. A god/goddess/pantheon which is concerned whether the animal is stunned before it's killed is a very, very petty god/goddess/pantheon, imo. Very... anthropomorphic, naye?
On June 29 2011 19:58 Ghazwan wrote: I still find this whole discussion a display of hypocrisy. We breed these animals to eventually eat them. During their lifetime, they are documented to live in horrible conditions. And, we are fine with all that.
Yet, when it comes to the last few seconds of these animals, we grow a bleeding heart based on inconsistent scientific data, risking to antagonize a relatively large minority group. If anything, this tells me that this ban is in motion just to irritate Muslims, and another step forward to religious intolerance which has been growing at a worrying rate in the Netherlands.
Well it's a step by step progress, pvdd is also trying to change this and overall has been changing it already.
For example we are also the first country that doesn't allow pigs to be castrated without being stunned/drugged (or w/e is the correct word for ''verdoofd'').
These particular animals might all have a similar purpose, but that doesn't mean you can't hold up some living standards for them... animal rights...
Jewish and Muslim traditions, imo. Animal Rights are fine, but i'm not so into sacrificing the rights of billions of human beings for the sake of lessening a few seconds of pain and fear for an animals who was born, raised, and kept alive for the sole sake of having that happen to him. Livestock animals don't really have rights imo. They're more like plants.
EDIT: For clarification, i'm not saying that the traditions are ALWAYS more important. If there was a practice of stabbing a dog in the stomach and watching it bleed it out for no reason, I'd side with the dog. But, in this case, the animals are going to be killed anyway. It's only a few seconds. Are those few seconds of the animal really worth oppression, whether it be great or small?
On June 29 2011 18:25 nucleo wrote: many people here dismiss this tradition simply by saying the source is religious and giving it no further thought. the source for this tradition is not religoius rather than the tradition is religious. Looking for the source you will not find "religion" as that is where you start but you will find "Animal Rights". thats what this tradition is. It originated to offer less suffering to the animal.
Now, you may say that in today's world there are more humane ways to butcher an animal and you may have a valid point but coming out dismissing something without really knowing what its about strikes me a bit odd.
While ones view against Kosher butchering might be the right one its a shame that the thought process that brought him to that conclusion is a wrong one.
*Note that I am only refering to a part of those who oppose and not the whole.
The origins are irrelevant, what matters is why people do it NOW, at this point in time. The answer to that, is because their religion tells them too. Way back, it might have had a good reason. Now? Probably not so much, which means that they should abandon the practice, now that it is outdated.
well it seems that you missed my point. Though I agree the origins are irrelevant many people here disagree with both you and me and dismiss an act only by what they see as its origin.Then they add to this act by not even know or bothering to find out what this origin they oppose to is. That kind of thinking is another problem, a different one (and a bigger one I dare say) but it obviously got entangled here as well. To those people, who dismiss an act solely based on its "origin" with and/or without even knowing the origin my message was intended.
More on topic, I have yet to find a reliable source in this thread to convince me that shocking the animal is less painful. Only videos/articles with a bad smell of bias and integrity issues. The only somewhat reliable sources I have found (and I may have missed some) are to say the contrary.
It's not that I favoure one over the other. In the context of animal cruelty I think they are both pretty much the same.
In any event, there is much more cruelty in the way they grow and house these animals then how they are killed. It seems more like an attack on uncomfortable tradition then on animal cruelty.
I still find this whole discussion a display of hypocrisy. We breed these animals to eventually eat them. During their lifetime, they are documented to live in horrible conditions. And, we are fine with all that.
I invite you to find any statements of people pro animal welfare in this thread in which is stated that animals living in horrible conditions is fine. I eagerly await your response.
I was talking of the Dutch context. Throughout the discussion on this ban in the Netherlands (that passed yesterday btw with a vote of 116 against 30), my impression was that most people supporting this ban in the Netherlands did so because it was a ban on a Muslim practice, hence, my last post.
Just yesterday, the deputy prime minister Maxime Verhagen gave a speech. He said that "fear of foreigners is understandable and legitimate...We must not dispose of these concerns as offensive or say that one must not think that way," NRC Handelsblad quoted Verhagen as saying in the speech. "The uneasiness must also be the uneasiness of a people's party like the CDA."
I hope my impressions were wrong, but given the current context in the Netherlands, I do not think so.
On June 29 2011 17:16 tyCe wrote: That is your view and many others. I am not a Muslim but I understand to some degree the significance of Islamic beliefs and laws to Muslims. Islamic laws and norms have a divine source. They are not made by man but by God, and so it is not for you or me to question their validity or appropriateness.
That is your view and many others. I am not a Kali worshipper but I understand to some degree the significance of Kali beliefs and laws to the people who worship Kali. Kali's laws and norms have a divine source. They are not made by man but by God, and so it is not for you or me to question their validity or appropriateness.
That they grow up like shit (define this pls, this varies widly depending on country) is no argument for killing them in a more painfull way than necessary...
we should close this thread. the argument here is belief vs belief. the belief that animal suffering is wrong vs the belief of god.
Personally I don't give a shit about either, this thread isn't going anywhere, plus this whole "rights" bullshit is gone so fucking far. People just need to accept that there's a norm in society that is ever changing, animal rights is "fashionable" right now that's why we have this, plus halal is just a tradition, we all move on from them, you might as well get over it because it will happen someday in the future.
On June 29 2011 20:22 TALegion wrote: Jewish and Muslim traditions, imo. Animal Rights are fine, but i'm not so into sacrificing the rights of billions of human beings for the sake of lessening a few seconds of pain and fear for an animals who was born, raised, and kept alive for the sole sake of having that happen to him. Livestock animals don't really have rights imo. They're more like plants.
EDIT: For clarification, i'm not saying that the traditions are ALWAYS more important. If there was a practice of stabbing a dog in the stomach and watching it bleed it out for no reason, I'd side with the dog. But, in this case, the animals are going to be killed anyway. It's only a few seconds. Are those few seconds of the animal really worth oppression, whether it be great or small?
If there is no valid reason for the cruelty, then yes there is cause to legislate out any exceptions to the laws protecting animals from needless cruelty.
The dificulty with getting rid of the legal exeptions is that A) The religoens in question can bring a lot of pressure to bear to resist the removal of the exemption and B) The government trying to remove the exemption needs to be very careful its facts are straight and there can be no claim of discrimination or persecution
On June 29 2011 20:35 Mykill wrote: we should close this thread. the argument here is belief vs belief. the belief that animal suffering is wrong vs the belief of god.
Personally I don't give a shit about either, this thread isn't going anywhere, plus this whole "rights" bullshit is gone so fucking far. People just need to accept that there's a norm in society that is ever changing, animal rights is "fashionable" right now that's why we have this, plus halal is just a tradition, we all move on from them, you might as well get over it because it will happen someday in the future.
It is not belief vs belief.
Suffering is not particularly nice for the being that suffers. That is a fact. God is not a fact.
On June 29 2011 20:35 Mykill wrote: we should close this thread. the argument here is belief vs belief. the belief that animal suffering is wrong vs the belief of god.
Personally I don't give a shit about either, this thread isn't going anywhere, plus this whole "rights" bullshit is gone so fucking far. People just need to accept that there's a norm in society that is ever changing, animal rights is "fashionable" right now that's why we have this, plus halal is just a tradition, we all move on from them, you might as well get over it because it will happen someday in the future.
It is not belief vs belief.
Suffering is not particularly nice for the being that suffers. That is a fact. God is not a fact.
I'd say facts take precedence over nonfacts.
Lol, if only it were this easy. Half the issue with argueing with religeous nuts is that they claim thier belief is in fact... fact ! (Just not a fact they can prove empyricly)
A whole bunch of people in this thread who don't even know a thing about halal/kosher butchering somehow thinking it's just some cruel tradition that causes animal suffering. These traditions aren't just baseless, someone linked a study involving EEG earlier in this thread showing that halal/kosher is very "humane". This law is incredibly ignorant and people who think it's just "protecting" religious rights are pretty ignorant too.
Shatter Storm, can you provide me empirical proof? (both for Hala and Shock) Not asking as to taunt or any thing, I am really interested and have not found any thing close to that here.
*edit: The only thing close to that is the EEG study.That said halal is better. http://mustaqim.co.uk/halalstudy.htm Though the website is of question, this is the closest this thread has to offer.
I'm not sure if the theist version of butchering animals is inhumane or not, I am not educated enough in that field.
If it is in fact any less humane than the non theist version. Then yes it should certainly be banned. Animals should not suffer needlessly for beliefs.
Lol, if only it were this easy. Half the issue with argueing with religeous nuts is that they claim thier belief is in fact... fact ! (Just not a fact they can prove empyricly)
It is "fact" to these religious nuts because they have based their entire life around these set of beliefs. To an outsider their beliefs may appear stupid, but you can't really prove or disprove any form of theism; the most you can do is point out logical inconsistencies.
On June 29 2011 20:49 Technique wrote: Hehe, yeah a lot of religious people still deny evolution as well... so.... no reasoning with religious people for the most part.
Thanks do you have any other bigoted statements you'd like to make about minorities? African-Americans or Socialists maybe?
I'll start with this, know it will never happen but I almost see the Dutch law as an extension of the "kosher" idea. Now I'm not Jewish and please correct me if I'm wrong but I've always understood that aspect of kosher was to be humane to the animal you're about to eat. Knocking the cow out first before slaughter seems even more humane to me.
On June 29 2011 20:49 Technique wrote: Hehe, yeah a lot of religious people still deny evolution as well... so.... no reasoning with religious people for the most part.
Thanks do you have any other bigoted statements you'd like to make about minorities? African-Americans or Socialists maybe?
What minorities are you reffering too ? If you are saying that religeous people denying evolution being in the minority of church goers, you may be right, but considering they take their anti darwinism stance on advice from the mother church... and that the church itself is definately NOT a minority group...I find it hard to get your point here.
What a debate... Actually most animals slaughtered by the food industry suffer much more. Sure they get stunned by electro-shocks (at least in europe that is law) but if you ever see their way to this point... you wouldnt care about a religiouse slaughter with a knife where the animals in most cases actually have a much more enjoyable life.
For example chickens in the normal food industry: They live their life in darkness with zero space trampeling on their dead mates and when the final day has come, they get pushed into a big machine that sorts them automaticly (while alive) and hangs them from the feet where they are pulled through a whole industrial complex. Right before they get slaughtered (they already see the machine that cuts off the head of their mates) they are pulled through a tank with water where they get an electro-shock stunning them, immidiately after this their head is cut off.
I would prefere a traditional slaughter anytime if I were an animal.
This law has nothing to do with animal wellfare, its only about discriminating jewish and muslim traditions while showing stupid stereotypes. The big food industry would be the first station any animal-rights supporter should protest about.
On June 29 2011 20:57 revy wrote: I'll start with this, know it will never happen but I almost see the Dutch law as an extension of the "kosher" idea. Now I'm not Jewish and please correct me if I'm wrong but I've always understood that aspect of kosher was to be humane to the animal you're about to eat. Knocking the cow out first before slaughter seems even more humane to me.
If the goal is to be humane as possible, would there not even be a method more humane than a blow to the head or a electric shock ? Pehapse a major drug overdose would cause the cow to die REAL happy (and give those consuming the meat a little something "extra" as well.)
I can see it now "New Improved Kosher with 20% extra poppy juice"
On June 29 2011 21:04 esperanto wrote: This law has nothing to do with animal wellfare, its only about discriminating jewish and muslim traditions while showing stupid stereotypes. The big food industry would be the first station any animal-rights supporter should protest about.
I fully agree with this statement, unfortunately we also have economics to consider. Terrible as it is, it is just more cost effective to farm with "Battery Hens" rather than "Free range" The same is true for every other form of meat & animal byproduct production.
There are extremes on both sides of the animal cruelty coin. Finding the balance is mostly a function of the local society in question and what that society will tolerate.
Also, unfortunately for supply to come even close to meeting demand, there is NO way we could have ALL our meat raised and killed in the most humain manner. There isnt enough room on the planet to handle enough animals in this fashion for our existing population of meat eaters.
The only way to eliminate animal suffering completely is for us to all become vegitarians... or adopt Soylent Green as a dietary alternative
I'm christian but I still believe their traditions should be be more priorized, the results for me reek of people not liking muslims / jews as much in general, but I have sympathy for the dudes =/
On June 29 2011 20:49 Technique wrote: Hehe, yeah a lot of religious people still deny evolution as well... so.... no reasoning with religious people for the most part.
Thanks do you have any other bigoted statements you'd like to make about minorities? African-Americans or Socialists maybe?
What minorities are you reffering too ? If you are saying that religeous people denying evolution being in the minority of church goers, you may be right, but considering they take their anti darwinism stance on advice from the mother church... and that the church itself is definately NOT a minority group...I find it hard to get your point here.
He didn't specify what religious group he was talking about. He just seems like another kid who is religiously intolerant.
I'm christian but I still believe their traditions should be be more priorized, the results for me reek of people not liking muslims / jews as much in general, but I have sympathy for the dudes =/
If halal/kosher was actually inhumane then we would actually have something to discuss and debate over. Instead we have people who don't know what they're talking about claim it's inhumane and trying to push their weird agenda of intolerance?
Well, I'm eating pork noodles now while having a conversation with a veggie friend of mine who is studying in a Yeshiva in Jerusalem. Funny stuff (:
Anyway he claims that the reason against shocking is that it hurts the animal and kosher schita is to be done on an uninjured animal. On the other hand he says that many reformed are now using shock in the US and that in Israel at least, it more and more common to do the cut in a way... I didnt understand.. but basically the do the cut while moving the caddle to be upside down so it looses conciousness or something.. Didnt fully understand.
He himself is a vegetarian as most of his buddies are and they consider it a "higher" way of eating as it reduces animal cruelty almost absolutly. He claims that though it's a very slow growing thing it does catch up in the orthodox crowd.
On June 29 2011 19:46 konadora wrote: religion is too damn important/sensitive in keeping the country and international ties stable...
That's very interesting what you're saying, but where did you get that? Does it mean that with no religions, world will become "unstable"? It would rather be true without science, but i don't understand how can it be true without religion, if you have the will to do it, i would be glad that you elaborate more
Anyway returning to the topic, If i had a pig and i needed to kill him, i would definitely look for the painless way, to me it would seems rather a rational choice.
The argument of traditions is just ridiculous... A tradition has no empathy, neither it has common sense, it's based on beliefs and nothing else. It never evolves until the generation that carry them die off. On top of that, traditions will always be overwhelmed by necessity. So why bothering with traditions if it can avoid animal suffering?
On June 29 2011 19:46 konadora wrote: religion is too damn important/sensitive in keeping the country and international ties stable...
That's very interesting what you're saying, but where did you get that? Does it mean that with no religions, world will become "unstable"? It would rather be true without science, but i don't understand how can it be true without religion, if you have the will to do it, i would be glad that you elaborate more
Anyway returning to the topic, If i had a pig and i needed to kill him, i would definitely look for the painless way, to me it would seems rather a rational choice.
The argument of traditions is just ridiculous... A tradition has no empathy, neither it has common sense, it's based on beliefs and nothing else. It never evolves until the generation that carry them die off. On top of that, traditions will always be overwhelmed by necessity. So why bothering with traditions if it can avoid animal suffering?
Yes but the point is that the method of stunning hasn't been proven to be any more humane than that of halal/kosher. The whole point of halal/kosher is to avoid animal suffering so I don't get why people keep trying to enforce this point about "traditions are dumb". Yeah this tradition would be pretty dumb if it didn't actually do what it's intent is but fortunately it does actually minimise animal suffering.
Secondly you realise that a lot of people seek out religion on their own right? There are people who are fine with believing that there is no afterlife or some kind of deity etc etc(I'm one of them) but there are a whole lot of people who need to believe in something, anything. They can't believe in nothing because then everyone would just experience existential crises all the time and society/people would fall apart. Religion is a necessity for a lot of people so that they don't turn into manic depressives. But also religion is a pretty useful tool for those in power to control the populace. No one will argue that religion causes a lot of pain and suffering and wars and all that but it helps a lot of people and if you really think the world would be better off without religion then you probably haven't thought enough about how it would affect a lot of people.
On June 29 2011 21:12 GGitsJack wrote: I'm christian but I still believe their traditions should be be more priorized, the results for me reek of people not liking muslims / jews as much in general, but I have sympathy for the dudes =/
Wich is ironic given how the two groups of people who both want this right actually can't stand each other.
On June 29 2011 20:49 Technique wrote: Hehe, yeah a lot of religious people still deny evolution as well... so.... no reasoning with religious people for the most part.
Thanks do you have any other bigoted statements you'd like to make about minorities? African-Americans or Socialists maybe?
What minorities are you reffering too ? If you are saying that religeous people denying evolution being in the minority of church goers, you may be right, but considering they take their anti darwinism stance on advice from the mother church... and that the church itself is definately NOT a minority group...I find it hard to get your point here.
He didn't specify what religious group he was talking about. He just seems like another kid who is religiously intolerant.
I'm christian but I still believe their traditions should be be more priorized, the results for me reek of people not liking muslims / jews as much in general, but I have sympathy for the dudes =/
If halal/kosher was actually inhumane then we would actually have something to discuss and debate over. Instead we have people who don't know what they're talking about claim it's inhumane and trying to push their weird agenda of intolerance?
If it's human to slit an animals throat and let it bleed to death then please provide a link showing that animals don't suffer from this.
If I thought that it made that much of a difference to the aniamls, I might support a ban. For example if the Muslim tradition was the hack off the hooves of a still living cow then flay it before killing it, yeah you bet that wouldn't be tolerated.
But this...it's a method that's been used for centuries. To my mind at least it is not cruel or unneccessarily painful for the animal; I mean they are being killed. If you can accept them being killed as not cruel, you can probably accept that cutting their throat is an ok way to do it.
People should try Halal and Kosher meat before voting. As a meat gourmet, i'm lucky enough to leave in a neighborhood with a very mixed population in Paris, and a sizable community of orthodox jews and lots of arab-descendants frenchs. Therefore, I had Hallal, Kosher and "french" butcheries just next to my home. Now, let's talk about taste because it is the only thing that matters.
First, the quality of the grooming of the animal has the biggest impact on the taste of the meat. In France, the muslim community is usually lower-class. For orthodox jews, things are most complex, but the orthodox community is not as rich as people usually think. Lots of kids, private religious schools and only one income (women usually don't work) means that they have a lot of expenses and not so much money. On the other hand, the slaughtering of animals in the Halal/Kasher tradition costs more because you have to take a little more time per animal. So, to be able to offer the meat at a low prize, muslim/jew butchers usually buy cull cows, usually from dairy farms. Therefore, the initial quality of the meat is average to bad.
Does the method of slaughtering change the taste of meat? Answer is of course. Fear is the first factor. Fear means that your animal is going to contract his muscled when dying. That means a less tender meat. In fact, stun machines are not used because they are painless (they aren't) but because an unconscious animal is going to loosen his muscles. The second factor is adrenalin. Adrenalin tastes awful and a scared animal tastes just less good (as a side note, if you are hunter, this explains why you should always try to kill in one shot dears, a scared hurt dear tastes fucking terrible). With the "industrial method", even if you stun them, cows are in a row so they know they are going to be killed. With the halal/kosher method, cows are individually treated, and usually, that means less fear. There will be little to no difference between the industrial or the religious method on this matter. Here, it will come down to the organization of the slaughtering house.
The last factor is blood. Halal and Kosher meat is drained. Therefore, is you want to buy minced meat, Halal meat is a bad choice as it well be almost tasteless, and with little substance. On the other hand, Halal/Kosher cow meat is slightly better because they salt the meat (making it tastier), and because the blood is factor on the fermentation of the meat. Halal meat tastes good for a little longer than your usual meat.
Therefore, if you like meat, my advice would be to buy Halal/Kosher meat if you are sure that the original quality of the animals is the same. If it is not, you should still buy your meat on an unaffiliated "traditional" butcher. It is going to be probably better that a "bad" meat well slaughtered. If you like lamb, i really advice Halal. The lamb is a little older and it gains a lot in taste (of course, i even like mutton, so take this advice with a pinch of salt).
On June 29 2011 20:49 Technique wrote: Hehe, yeah a lot of religious people still deny evolution as well... so.... no reasoning with religious people for the most part.
Thanks do you have any other bigoted statements you'd like to make about minorities? African-Americans or Socialists maybe?
What minorities are you reffering too ? If you are saying that religeous people denying evolution being in the minority of church goers, you may be right, but considering they take their anti darwinism stance on advice from the mother church... and that the church itself is definately NOT a minority group...I find it hard to get your point here.
He didn't specify what religious group he was talking about. He just seems like another kid who is religiously intolerant.
I'm christian but I still believe their traditions should be be more priorized, the results for me reek of people not liking muslims / jews as much in general, but I have sympathy for the dudes =/
If halal/kosher was actually inhumane then we would actually have something to discuss and debate over. Instead we have people who don't know what they're talking about claim it's inhumane and trying to push their weird agenda of intolerance?
If it's human to slit an animals throat and let it bleed to death then please provide a link showing that animals don't suffer from this.
There's a link on the first page of the thread, dunno if it's exactly a rock solid source.
legaton, first of all meat that is given the label halal or kosher doesn't taste any different from the same meat that doesn't have this label.
Secondly, it may be true that an animal that is in fear and has adrenaline rushing through it's veins and tenses up all it's muscles can taste different. But I heard different, what are in fact, opinions about the effect of this on taste. Some say it is bad, some say it is better. I haven't seen the science on this but a personal experience is going to be completely useless. I really doubt the average meat eater would be able to tell the difference even if there is one. Just imagining the better taste because you know it's on concordance with your religion despite the effort may be easy to do, especially so since you can then already imagine gods to exist, but doesn't count at evidence.
Third, this is outside the debate. You say 'taste is all that matters'. That's why there is a law banning exactly that idea. The law forbids your line of argument, even if it isn't fallacious. Not stunning was banned except for religious butchering.
On June 29 2011 22:18 legaton wrote: People should try Halal and Kosher meat before voting. As a meat gourmet, i'm lucky enough to leave in a neighborhood with a very mixed population in Paris, and a sizable community of orthodox jews and lots of arab-descendants frenchs. Therefore, I had Hallal, Kosher and "french" butcheries just next to my home. Now, let's talk about taste because it is the only thing that matters.
First, the quality of the grooming of the animal has the biggest impact on the taste of the meat. In France, the muslim community is usually lower-class. For orthodox jews, things are most complex, but the orthodox community is not as rich as people usually think. Lots of kids, private religious schools and only one income (women usually don't work) means that they have a lot of expenses and not so much money. On the other hand, the slaughtering of animals in the Halal/Kasher tradition costs more because you have to take a little more time per animal. So, to be able to offer the meat at a low prize, muslim/jew butchers usually buy cull cows, usually from dairy farms. Therefore, the initial quality of the meat is average to bad.
Does the method of slaughtering change the taste of meat? Answer is of course. Fear is the first factor. Fear means that your animal is going to contract his muscled when dying. That means a less tender meat. In fact, stun machines are not used because they are painless (they aren't) but because an unconscious animal is going to loosen his muscles. The second factor is adrenalin. Adrenalin tastes awful and a scared animal tastes just less good (as a side note, if you are hunter, this explains why you should always try to kill in one shot dears, a scared hurt dear tastes fucking terrible). With the "industrial method", even if you stun them, cows are in a row so they know they are going to be killed. With the halal/kosher method, cows are individually treated, and usually, that means less fear. There will be little to no difference between the industrial or the religious method on this matter. Here, it will come down to the organization of the slaughtering house.
The last factor is blood. Halal and Kosher meat is drained. Therefore, is you want to buy minced meat, Halal meat is a bad choice as it well be almost tasteless, and with little substance. On the other hand, Halal/Kosher cow meat is slightly better because they salt the meat (making it tastier), and because the blood is factor on the fermentation of the meat. Halal meat tastes good for a little longer than your usual meat.
Therefore, if you like meat, my advice would be to buy Halal/Kosher meat if you are sure that the original quality of the animals is the same. If it is not, you should still buy your meat on an unaffiliated "traditional" butcher. It is going to be probably better that a "bad" meat well slaughtered. If you like lamb, i really advice Halal. The lamb is a little older and it gains a lot in taste (of course, i even like mutton, so take this advice with a pinch of salt).
Would you mind keeping such fantasies to yourself?
There is no demonstrateable difference in the taste of meat based on the how normal people slaughter animals and how the religious slaughter animals.
This topic is filled to the brim with falsehoods and researches headlined by hardcore muslims/jews and passed off as reasonable unbiased research. It doesn't need the ludicrous lie that the taste of meat is superior or inferior in halal/kosher slaughter.
People cannot taste the difference between kosher slaughter and normal slaughter. The minimalistical differences that exist are so small that only the foolish delude themselves into believing they can taste the difference. It is like saying you are able to taste the presence of oil when you eat the mud several miles above it.
The perceived difference in taste between halal food and non-halal food (or kosher for that matter) does not exist. It is an utter fabrication. It cannot be proven scientifically and every time a person like you claims to taste the difference he actually knows what is halal and what isn't. Expectations influence your taste. Given a blind test you would be guessing wrong 50% of the time.
Poor barbarians. We, french people, have trained our senses for several years to analyze the subtle differences in texture and taste of liquors and food. The Netherlands should embrace the superior slaughtering and cooking methods of the arab-descendants instead of persecuting them. Arab pastries are a simple delicious, and arab gastronomy is great thanks to its deep understanding of spices and enjoyable preparations like tajines and couscours. On the other hand, the only thing memorable from the Netherlands is Gouda, a disgusting pasteurized (!!!!!) cheese. On anything related to food, i would trust arabs over dutchmen.
On June 30 2011 00:48 legaton wrote: Poor barbarians. We, french people, have trained our senses for several years to analyze the subtle differences in texture and taste of liquors and food. The Netherlands should embrace the superior slaughtering and cooking methods of the arab-descendants instead of persecuting them. Arab pastries are a simple delicious, and arab gastronomy is great thanks to its deep understanding of spices and enjoyable preparations like tajines and couscours. On the other hand, the only thing memorable from the Netherlands is Gouda, a disgusting pasteurized (!!!!!) cheese. On anything related to food, i would trust arabs over dutchmen.
What are you even talking about? Out of desperation you jump off the meat train and climb on board of the...arab pastry train? Trusting arabs over dutchmen? Could you try not to be so unstable and starting to flip out the moment your complete lies get adressed?
Atleast i am glad to you stopped defending your complete lies. You can enjoy the middle-eastern kitchen all day long, i know i do, but i don't waste time pretending like there is a difference between halal and non-halal meat.
I didn't adress your post because you like middle-eastern food, i adressed it because you made the complete false statement that religiously slaughtered meat tastes any different.
I'm seeing folks skimming through some people mentioning that the point of Halal Butchering is to raise and butcher in a painless way anyway. Who told you that it's inhumane. There's even this one guy that mentioned that they let the Animal bleed to death, which is outright Fabrication. Don't let your beliefs get in the way of the method its self.
I bet that if the Method didn't have an Islamic term attached to it, there would be much less complaints about it
Please don't make up facts. I've seen Halal butchering and the process takes less than a second to put the animal down.
to me, religion is old and so are its practices, things should be updated since we are now more knowledgeable about things, and we are more understanding than back then. We more have standards that tell us right from wrong compared to back then, they need to patch that shit asap. edit: i can confidently and safely say, im sure god would rather they stun the animal than make it suffer, back then when bibles were written we didnt have that stun power, if jesus was alive right now he'd say stun that animal first or taste a my thunder xD.
On June 30 2011 01:07 Veevro wrote: I'm seeing folks skimming through some people mentioning that the point of Halal Butchering is to raise and butcher in a painless way anyway. Who told you that it's inhumane.
The point is that an animal that is stunned suffers less. This means slitting the throat and killing it in seconds causes unneeded suffering for no advantage at all.
Also, scientific objective research done shows that in practice the animals don't die fast and that it takes 3 to 4 slices on average to kill an animal. This is contrary to what the religious people involved claim as they all claim that with a properly sharp knife and proper training the animal dies the moment it is sliced. This is just contrary to reality. But the problem with religious people is that is their bread and butter. Gods don't exist. And their religious view on the reality of slaughtering is just as deluded. They have in their mind as a statement of faith that halal and kosher slaughtering is humane. It is their dogma. God says so. So all science on this has to be wrong. That's how these religious people think. Luckily most religious people, jewish and muslim, already moved away from this. We are talking about what are considered extremists in our western world.
I bet that if the Method didn't have an Islamic term attached to it, there would be much less complaints about it
Please don't make up facts. I've seen Halal butchering and the process takes less than a second to put the animal down.
Yes, this is true but besides the point. If it was just the Jewish people doing this I am pretty sure PVV and VVD wouldn't have backed this law.
But why complain when xenophobia finally leads to something good?
On June 29 2011 07:17 Roflhaxx wrote: I really couldn't care less about jewish and islamic traditions. The rest of western world has moved on from living like "god" told us to years ago. Why shouldn't they?
Because they don't have to. To impose your ideals on to the ideals of other members of humanity for what? For rights of beasts? I don't see how you think beasts of consumption's well being exceeds to rights of humans to have their own culture when that culture do not harm humanity itself. As long as humanity itself remains unharmed I see no wrong in such practices. Also we must not impose such kind of ideals on to others. the last time we did that there was a crusade
On June 29 2011 07:23 Killrwombat wrote: Animal rights are definitely a priority rather then accommodating religious traditions in my book. There is no reason to make an animal suffer in death, killing an animal for food is bad enough.
Keeping Religious tolerance open is definitely a priority rather than Animal rights. There is no reason to make a people suffer in cultural oppression.
If someone starts suffering just because the ANIMAL (not beast) you are eating have been butchered in a humane way, I don't really feel sorry for them tbh. Really, why do you keep saying beast over and over again, I wouldn't call a cow or a chicken a beast.I'm not even gonna bother discussing the other crap you said, I don't see that you will listen to whatever I say anyway.
On June 29 2011 07:17 Roflhaxx wrote: I really couldn't care less about jewish and islamic traditions. The rest of western world has moved on from living like "god" told us to years ago. Why shouldn't they?
Because they don't have to. To impose your ideals on to the ideals of other members of humanity for what? For rights of beasts? I don't see how you think beasts of consumption's well being exceeds to rights of humans to have their own culture when that culture do not harm humanity itself. As long as humanity itself remains unharmed I see no wrong in such practices. Also we must not impose such kind of ideals on to others. the last time we did that there was a crusade
On June 29 2011 07:23 Killrwombat wrote: Animal rights are definitely a priority rather then accommodating religious traditions in my book. There is no reason to make an animal suffer in death, killing an animal for food is bad enough.
Keeping Religious tolerance open is definitely a priority rather than Animal rights. There is no reason to make a people suffer in cultural oppression.
If someone starts suffering just because the ANIMAL (not beast) you are eating have been butchered in a humane way, I don't really feel sorry for them tbh. Really, why do you keep saying beast over and over again, I wouldn't call a cow or a chicken a beast.I'm not even gonna bother discussing the other crap you said, I don't see that you will listen to whatever I say anyway.
Because you are denying a people their basic constitutional rights for Animal rights. What you are is sacrificing rights of other humans for animals. Why can you not grasp the concept that humans are superior to animals? And that animal rights only matter when it does not sacrifice the rights of human beings? And not to mention Halal is rather painless way to kill the animals already.
On June 29 2011 07:17 Roflhaxx wrote: I really couldn't care less about jewish and islamic traditions. The rest of western world has moved on from living like "god" told us to years ago. Why shouldn't they?
Because they don't have to. To impose your ideals on to the ideals of other members of humanity for what? For rights of beasts? I don't see how you think beasts of consumption's well being exceeds to rights of humans to have their own culture when that culture do not harm humanity itself. As long as humanity itself remains unharmed I see no wrong in such practices. Also we must not impose such kind of ideals on to others. the last time we did that there was a crusade
On June 29 2011 07:23 Killrwombat wrote: Animal rights are definitely a priority rather then accommodating religious traditions in my book. There is no reason to make an animal suffer in death, killing an animal for food is bad enough.
Keeping Religious tolerance open is definitely a priority rather than Animal rights. There is no reason to make a people suffer in cultural oppression.
If someone starts suffering just because the ANIMAL (not beast) you are eating have been butchered in a humane way, I don't really feel sorry for them tbh. Really, why do you keep saying beast over and over again, I wouldn't call a cow or a chicken a beast.I'm not even gonna bother discussing the other crap you said, I don't see that you will listen to whatever I say anyway.
Because you are denying a people their basic constitutional rights for Animal rights. What you are is sacrificing rights of other humans for animals. Why can you not grasp the concept that humans are superior to animals? And that animal rights only matter when it does not sacrifice the rights of human beings? And not to mention Halal is rather painless way to kill the animals already.
Why can you not grasp the concept that a few people's superstition does not mean they can torture animals? Why can you not grasp the concept that even though we humans are superior to animals (which also depends on how you define superior) that does not imply that we can treat animals like shit when they too can feel pain and the more intelligent ones have emotions.
Not to mention I'm not aware of a constitution that says it's okay to torture animals if you're religious. Freedom of religion does not mean freedom to harm others because your religion says so.
On June 29 2011 07:17 Roflhaxx wrote: I really couldn't care less about jewish and islamic traditions. The rest of western world has moved on from living like "god" told us to years ago. Why shouldn't they?
Because they don't have to. To impose your ideals on to the ideals of other members of humanity for what? For rights of beasts? I don't see how you think beasts of consumption's well being exceeds to rights of humans to have their own culture when that culture do not harm humanity itself. As long as humanity itself remains unharmed I see no wrong in such practices. Also we must not impose such kind of ideals on to others. the last time we did that there was a crusade
On June 29 2011 07:23 Killrwombat wrote: Animal rights are definitely a priority rather then accommodating religious traditions in my book. There is no reason to make an animal suffer in death, killing an animal for food is bad enough.
Keeping Religious tolerance open is definitely a priority rather than Animal rights. There is no reason to make a people suffer in cultural oppression.
If someone starts suffering just because the ANIMAL (not beast) you are eating have been butchered in a humane way, I don't really feel sorry for them tbh. Really, why do you keep saying beast over and over again, I wouldn't call a cow or a chicken a beast.I'm not even gonna bother discussing the other crap you said, I don't see that you will listen to whatever I say anyway.
Because you are denying a people their basic constitutional rights for Animal rights. What you are is sacrificing rights of other humans for animals. Why can you not grasp the concept that humans are superior to animals? And that animal rights only matter when it does not sacrifice the rights of human beings? And not to mention Halal is rather painless way to kill the animals already.
What is so complicated about understanding that making animals suffer for no good reason is foolish? Just because some people decided to convince themselves that their god needs them to find new and funky ways to kill animals doesn't mean the modern world needs to tolerate such backward thinking.
Religious freedom doesn't mean you can bypass the law, however much religious people seem to forget this. We kill animals in a humane way and now the religious will have to sedate the animals before they have their fun with them.
Halal and Kosher are not painless, this has allready been scientifically established. You shouldn't just keep screaming against scientific fact just because it doesn't suit your position. Accept that your side contains needless animal suffering, don't be so spineless as to cover that up.
There are no human rights being sacrificed here because i do not view religious slaughter as to be a part of religious freedom. Religious freedom is pretty limited in my view so there is no problem at all with preventing this needless animal torture.
Slaughtering animals in a ritualistic fashion just doesn't belong in a modern state. You need to stop trying to make this about wether or not humans are superior to animals, nobody is debating that in the slightest, you just keep screaming it like a broken record in an attempt to move the debate into a direction that nobody wants it to go. Well you want it to go there because then everything becomes so very simple.
Animals truly suffer in this form of slaughter. Their pain is real. Religion cannot be proven and should be relegated as not real until proven otherwise. The gain of these rituals are non existant or at best unproveable.
No need to torture animals just because some religious people can't get with the times.
Animal welfare trumps tradition (even religious) any day in my book.
Edit: In ny way am i an "Animal nut" btw. I hunt, fish eat meat in general etc etc. It's just that tradition (especially religious) is truly pointless/worthless imo. I
The screeching hyperbole in this thread is silly. "Torture"? Come on. The fact is that there is evidence that the halal method is less painful, and evidence that the stunning method is less painful. Just because certain posters are biased against the religious advocacy groups studies doesn't mean that the animal rights groups are any more accurate. Just accept that there is conflicting evidence and move on.
Personally, I think any law that forces a specific group of people to import all their meat is blatantly discriminatory and wrong, but if there's one thing this thread has actually proven, it's that some people will take absolutely any opportunity to bash religion, no matter who gets hurt.
Can anyone link me literature from beyond this one on wikipedia?
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.[18]
Everything else on wikipedia is peoples opinion/ancedotal which I don't consider evidence.
I think the decision in the OP is more political than anything and a good way to win support of the average white guy. I'd also say that this was a good decision and one I back.
In April 2008, the Food and Farming minister in the UK, Lord Rooker, stated that halal and kosher meat should be labeled when it is put on sale, so that members of the public can decide whether or not they want to buy food from animals that have been bled to death. He was quoted as saying, "I object to the method of slaughter ... my choice as a customer is that I would want to buy meat that has been looked after, and slaughtered in the most humane way possible."
On June 30 2011 01:51 Rabbitmaster wrote: Animal welfare trumps tradition (even religious) any day in my book.
your book isn't as popular as the other 2 books involved here.
Atleast his book is up to date unlike the other 2 that don't make any sense at all in the current world we live in
Also, my "Book" is metaphorical, only used to convey an expression. It does not contain any information about what people you can kill, how to butcher animals or what you can and can not do with your genitals.
I do not see an issue of letting them continue the slaughter unless they do not eat the meat. Assuming they do not eat the meat then well they should not be doing it. I am sure some homeless person would love some food and it would be a waste not to consume these animals after the practice.
I think that in truth those "laws" in the religion were created for the sole purpose of killing the animal in a as humane way as possible for the time with the tools they had at their disposals, not dictate how we should kill the animals in the future, where there are even humaner ways to kill the animal.
It's a tradition, that many many people have used, for many years. Now they see something wrong with it? No. It's not more cruelty to animals, than to put them to sleep, for them to not wake up for the morning sun. They die either way
edit; I really don't like how you wrote the questions. Neither of them are worth more than the others. I love animals, and I am in for animal rights. However, in this concern I am voting Traditions.
There were no links in the OP, but this (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2011/06/201162945027320392.html) video made it seem like the law was nitpicking over a few minutes of an animal's supposed suffering. They aren't torturing the animal in some kind of "ritual;" they are cutting its throat and then butchering it for food. What could be more simple than that? Is anyone really losing sleep because their cow took 2 minutes longer to die than another cow?
This looks like more of a jab at muslims/religion than rational concern for the welfare of livestock.
On June 30 2011 02:29 Nuf wrote: It's a tradition, that many many people have used, for many years. Now they see something wrong with it? No. It's not more cruelty to animals, than to put them to sleep, for them to not wake up for the morning sun. They die either way.
By that same logic, isn't burning alive just as "humane" as lethal injection? I mean, in the end both people die so there should be no difference?
On June 30 2011 02:29 Nuf wrote: It's a tradition, that many many people have used, for many years. Now they see something wrong with it? No. It's not more cruelty to animals, than to put them to sleep, for them to not wake up for the morning sun. They die either way.
By that same logic, isn't burning alive just as "humane" as lethal injection? I mean, in the end both people die so there should be no difference?
This is a false dichotomy. There is just as much evidence showing the religious method is less painful as there is showing it is more painful. It seems like people just believe the side they like more. Since there is conflicting evidence you can't compare halal/kosher slaughter to burning alive.
In absence of any evidence that this method is more inhumane that stunning and given that googling any method of slaughter will give horrific results of it going wrong I'm calling demagogy which is a new word Time magazine taught me earlier this week ^^
dem·a·gogue/ˈdeməˌgäg/Noun 1. A political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument.
On June 30 2011 02:29 Nuf wrote: It's a tradition, that many many people have used, for many years. Now they see something wrong with it? No. It's not more cruelty to animals, than to put them to sleep, for them to not wake up for the morning sun. They die either way.
By that same logic, isn't burning alive just as "humane" as lethal injection? I mean, in the end both people die so there should be no difference?
This is a false dichotomy. There is just as much evidence showing the religious method is less painful as there is showing it is more painful. It seems like people just believe the side they like more. Since there is conflicting evidence you can't compare halal/kosher slaughter to burning alive.
Seriously, the level of unthinking irrationalism from the anti-religious side borders on... religion.
On June 30 2011 02:29 Nuf wrote: It's a tradition, that many many people have used, for many years. Now they see something wrong with it? No. It's not more cruelty to animals, than to put them to sleep, for them to not wake up for the morning sun. They die either way.
By that same logic, isn't burning alive just as "humane" as lethal injection? I mean, in the end both people die so there should be no difference?
This is a false dichotomy. There is just as much evidence showing the religious method is less painful as there is showing it is more painful. It seems like people just believe the side they like more. Since there is conflicting evidence you can't compare halal/kosher slaughter to burning alive.
The problem with that is that these pro-ritual researches are almost exclusively presented by religious people whilst groups like the university of wageningen clearly proves it does hurt animals.
You could also find researchers that would tell you all the health benefits of smoking. Now let's be honest, can you really expect a muslim cleric or orthodox jew to be unbiased? Atleast the univeristy of wageningen doesn't have an agenda it has to answer to or a personal intrest in the outcome. If McDonalds revealed a research that showed that fast food makes you skinny, would you really begin to chow down on fast food every day?
On June 30 2011 02:29 Nuf wrote: It's a tradition, that many many people have used, for many years. Now they see something wrong with it? No. It's not more cruelty to animals, than to put them to sleep, for them to not wake up for the morning sun. They die either way.
By that same logic, isn't burning alive just as "humane" as lethal injection? I mean, in the end both people die so there should be no difference?
This is a false dichotomy. There is just as much evidence showing the religious method is less painful as there is showing it is more painful. It seems like people just believe the side they like more. Since there is conflicting evidence you can't compare halal/kosher slaughter to burning alive.
Seriously, the level of unthinking irrationalism from the anti-religious side borders on... religion.
This comment made me grin. I agree.
From a purely neutral standpoint, if people are willing to pay for it then I see no reason why it can't continue. The meat is probably tougher though.People claiming its cruelty to animals would be interested to learn the many double standards that would be present in the meat industry if this in particular was "crossing the line" from Standard procedure to animal cruelty.
On June 30 2011 02:29 Nuf wrote: It's a tradition, that many many people have used, for many years. Now they see something wrong with it? No. It's not more cruelty to animals, than to put them to sleep, for them to not wake up for the morning sun. They die either way.
By that same logic, isn't burning alive just as "humane" as lethal injection? I mean, in the end both people die so there should be no difference?
This is a false dichotomy. There is just as much evidence showing the religious method is less painful as there is showing it is more painful. It seems like people just believe the side they like more. Since there is conflicting evidence you can't compare halal/kosher slaughter to burning alive.
Seriously, the level of unthinking irrationalism from the anti-religious side borders on... religion.
This comment made me grin. I agree.
From a purely neutral standpoint, if people are willing to pay for it then I see no reason why it can't continue. The meat is probably tougher though.People claiming its cruelty to animals would be interested to learn the many double standards that would be present in the meat industry if this in particular was "crossing the line" from Standard procedure to animal cruelty.
We are talking about ritual slaughter, that is the subject. Can you try and stay on subject? Do you think you could do that for me?
Over a dozen time people have tried to point to the meat industry and say "well they aren't angels either!". If your arguments are that desperate should you really be defending it?
This topic isn't about the meat industry, it's about ritual slaughter.
On June 30 2011 02:29 Nuf wrote: It's a tradition, that many many people have used, for many years. Now they see something wrong with it? No. It's not more cruelty to animals, than to put them to sleep, for them to not wake up for the morning sun. They die either way.
By that same logic, isn't burning alive just as "humane" as lethal injection? I mean, in the end both people die so there should be no difference?
This is a false dichotomy. There is just as much evidence showing the religious method is less painful as there is showing it is more painful. It seems like people just believe the side they like more. Since there is conflicting evidence you can't compare halal/kosher slaughter to burning alive.
So if you were to be executed, how would you want it done? By lethal injection or should we cut open your arteries? It is quite obvious the religious one is more painful.
On June 30 2011 02:51 zalz wrote: We are talking about ritual slaughter, that is the subject. Can you try and stay on subject? Do you think you could do that for me?
Over a dozen time people have tried to point to the meat industry and say "well they aren't angels either!". If your arguments are that desperate should you really be defending it?
This topic isn't about the meat industry, it's about ritual slaughter.
Any reasonable balancing test would favor the preferences of several million people over the unproved claim that ritual slaughter hurts the animal more than the approved slaughter. Even assuming this is true (which we cannot), it is at most a few seconds of pain. It's simply unreasonable and bordering on religious zealotry to weigh the animal's rights so heavily and the human's rights so little.
All the false comparisons about ritual murder are silly and irrelevant. Nobody is suggesting that one's religion should always trump the laws. There are, however, many who suggest the other extreme, simply under the assumption that a practice from one's religion is less legitimate than any other practice. Would you be ok with a democratically-passed law that bans SC2 playing, on the grounds that it promotes violent fantasies?
On June 30 2011 02:29 Nuf wrote: It's a tradition, that many many people have used, for many years. Now they see something wrong with it? No. It's not more cruelty to animals, than to put them to sleep, for them to not wake up for the morning sun. They die either way.
By that same logic, isn't burning alive just as "humane" as lethal injection? I mean, in the end both people die so there should be no difference?
This is a false dichotomy. There is just as much evidence showing the religious method is less painful as there is showing it is more painful. It seems like people just believe the side they like more. Since there is conflicting evidence you can't compare halal/kosher slaughter to burning alive.
Seriously, the level of unthinking irrationalism from the anti-religious side borders on... religion.
This comment made me grin. I agree.
From a purely neutral standpoint, if people are willing to pay for it then I see no reason why it can't continue. The meat is probably tougher though.People claiming its cruelty to animals would be interested to learn the many double standards that would be present in the meat industry if this in particular was "crossing the line" from Standard procedure to animal cruelty.
We are talking about ritual slaughter, that is the subject. Can you try and stay on subject? Do you think you could do that for me?
Over a dozen time people have tried to point to the meat industry and say "well they aren't angels either!". If your arguments are that desperate should you really be defending it?
This topic isn't about the meat industry, it's about ritual slaughter.
I think his point is that they are both inhumane therefore equal.
Jokes aside, I think it's almost a non-issue since the whole process of industrial breeding is torture. Stunned or not, animals know very well when they are about to die.
On June 30 2011 02:51 zalz wrote: We are talking about ritual slaughter, that is the subject. Can you try and stay on subject? Do you think you could do that for me?
Over a dozen time people have tried to point to the meat industry and say "well they aren't angels either!". If your arguments are that desperate should you really be defending it?
This topic isn't about the meat industry, it's about ritual slaughter.
Any reasonable balancing test would favor the preferences of several million people over the unproved claim that ritual slaughter hurts the animal more than the approved slaughter. Even assuming this is true (which we cannot), it is at most a few seconds of pain. It's simply unreasonable and bordering on religious zealotry to weigh the animal's rights so heavily and the human's rights so little.
All the false comparisons about ritual murder are silly and irrelevant. Nobody is suggesting that one's religion should always trump the laws. There are, however, many who suggest the other extreme.
It has been established through unbiased scientific evidence that ritual slaughter induces more suffering on animals. If you can't handle that truth then you need to change your position.
Demanding that reality adapts to your worldview is ridiculous.
Religious people can sedate their animals and then perform their rituals. Religion has always made way for progress. Some people here consider themselves ooh so tolerant to the point where they let religion trample all over everything just so they can wear the tolerant hat. Who cares that some animals suffer avoidable pain right? A small price to pay i am sure.
You need to begin by accepting the obvious truth, stop trying to make reality what you want it to be. It's going to be very difficult if you keep refusing to acknowledge facts.
I think his point is that they are both inhumane therefore equal.
That would be a false point because scientific research showed otherwise.
The wording of this poll is so badly done that there could only have ever been one result from it. The problem is that animal welfare and religious practices are not mutually exclusive. It's pretty ridiculous seeing so many people in this thread(especially Thorakh) continually saying "torturing animals is wrong".... humane killing of animals for food is not torture.
Besides anyone familiar with the Dutch government knows that this law has absolutely nothing to do with animal welfare to begin with.
It's a cow. You can bitch about "humane" death when were not performing genocide. When it comes down to it you really shouldn't piss people off without good reason. Do you honestly feel any sympathy at all for the cow when you're eating a burger? No, I don't think you do. Most likely you are thinking "Damn! This is a tasty burger!" I know a lot of people who take kosher seriously as part of their culture and when it comes down to it the needs and desires of people will and should come before those of other species. Robbing people of their cultural practices because a cow will feel a burning sensation on it's throat for a minuet before passing out doesn't justify the government interfering with peoples' lives.
On June 30 2011 02:29 Nuf wrote: It's a tradition, that many many people have used, for many years. Now they see something wrong with it? No. It's not more cruelty to animals, than to put them to sleep, for them to not wake up for the morning sun. They die either way.
By that same logic, isn't burning alive just as "humane" as lethal injection? I mean, in the end both people die so there should be no difference?
This is a false dichotomy. There is just as much evidence showing the religious method is less painful as there is showing it is more painful. It seems like people just believe the side they like more. Since there is conflicting evidence you can't compare halal/kosher slaughter to burning alive.
So if you were to be executed, how would you want it done? By lethal injection or should we cut open your arteries? It is quite obvious the religious one is more painful.
You mean, if I were a cow or whatever, would I rather have my throat slit or be shot in the back of the head with a captive bolt pistol?
On June 30 2011 02:51 zalz wrote: We are talking about ritual slaughter, that is the subject. Can you try and stay on subject? Do you think you could do that for me?
Over a dozen time people have tried to point to the meat industry and say "well they aren't angels either!". If your arguments are that desperate should you really be defending it?
This topic isn't about the meat industry, it's about ritual slaughter.
Any reasonable balancing test would favor the preferences of several million people over the unproved claim that ritual slaughter hurts the animal more than the approved slaughter. Even assuming this is true (which we cannot), it is at most a few seconds of pain. It's simply unreasonable and bordering on religious zealotry to weigh the animal's rights so heavily and the human's rights so little.
All the false comparisons about ritual murder are silly and irrelevant. Nobody is suggesting that one's religion should always trump the laws. There are, however, many who suggest the other extreme.
It has been established through unbiased scientific evidence that ritual slaughter induces more suffering on animals. If you can't handle that truth then you need to change your position.
Demanding that reality adapts to your worldview is ridiculous.
Religious people can sedate their animals and then perform their rituals. Religion has always made way for progress. Some people here consider themselves ooh so tolerant to the point where they let religion trample all over everything just so they can wear the tolerant hat. Who cares that some animals suffer avoidable pain right? A small price to pay i am sure.
You need to begin by accepting the obvious truth, stop trying to make reality what you want it to be. It's going to be very difficult if you keep refusing to acknowledge facts.
I think his point is that they are both inhumane therefore equal.
That would be a false point because scientific research showed otherwise.
Show me. A quick google brings up references of "Studies overseas" "No hard evidence" "Vets think it hurts more". Report 161 is in Dutch? so I can't read it.
On wikipedia the EEG readings of animals slaughtered this way indicated that actually it is the same. Everything else is soft evidence.
There is talk that they are discussing combining stunning + ritual slaughter which is probably closer to the truth rather than a ban from the bits I found.
On June 30 2011 02:29 Nuf wrote: It's a tradition, that many many people have used, for many years. Now they see something wrong with it? No. It's not more cruelty to animals, than to put them to sleep, for them to not wake up for the morning sun. They die either way.
By that same logic, isn't burning alive just as "humane" as lethal injection? I mean, in the end both people die so there should be no difference?
This is a false dichotomy. There is just as much evidence showing the religious method is less painful as there is showing it is more painful. It seems like people just believe the side they like more. Since there is conflicting evidence you can't compare halal/kosher slaughter to burning alive.
So if you were to be executed, how would you want it done? By lethal injection or should we cut open your arteries? It is quite obvious the religious one is more painful.
On June 30 2011 03:03 zalz wrote: It has been established through unbiased scientific evidence that ritual slaughter induces more suffering on animals. If you can't handle that truth then you need to change your position.
Demanding that reality adapts to your worldview is ridiculous.
This is ironic. You are essentially ignoring all evidence contrary to your worldview by rejecting them at the outset as biased. My "worldview" is one of agnosticism. I have no a priori viewpoint on the efficacy of ritualistic slaughter, since I don't care about Kashrut or Halal, nor am I strong believer in animal rights.
Some people here consider themselves ooh so tolerant to the point where they let religion trample all over everything just so they can wear the tolerant hat. Who cares that some animals suffer avoidable pain right? A small price to pay i am sure.
I'm not saying who cares. I'm saying the strong preferences of humans should outweigh the short animal pain. If a ritual called for, say, beating the animal to death, then I would say the animal's rights would outweigh the preference. You, on the other hand, are completely discounting a human right, and moreover keep insisting it equates to "let[ting] religion trample all over everything," a non-sequitur if there ever was one. A reasonable person would realize that nobody is advocating that religion trample over all laws. But it does require a balancing act, as any liberal would tell you people's preferences should generally be respected. To completely ignore preferences just because they are religious is similar to the religious fascism that Europeans disdain, in which they ignore preferences just because they find them deviant. To suggest this one religious exemption equates to exempting religion from everything is evidence of your biased view, because that sort of conclusion defies logic and empirical evidence.
Look at your own biases. Just because your preferences on animal welfare doesn't come from some sky-god doesn't mean it's any less arbitrary than religious preferences.
On June 30 2011 03:03 zalz wrote: It has been established through unbiased scientific evidence that ritual slaughter induces more suffering on animals. If you can't handle that truth then you need to change your position.
Demanding that reality adapts to your worldview is ridiculous.
This is ironic. You are essentially ignoring all evidence contrary to your worldview by rejecting them at the outset as biased. My "worldview" is one of agnosticism. I have no a priori viewpoint on the efficacy of ritualistic slaughter, since I don't care about Kashrut or Halal, nor am I strong believer in animal rights.
Some people here consider themselves ooh so tolerant to the point where they let religion trample all over everything just so they can wear the tolerant hat. Who cares that some animals suffer avoidable pain right? A small price to pay i am sure.
I'm not saying who cares. I'm saying the strong preferences of humans should outweigh the short animal pain. If a ritual called for, say, beating the animal to death, then I would say the animal's rights would outweigh the preference. You, on the other hand, are completely discounting a human right, and moreover keep insisting it equates to "let[ting] religion trample all over everything," a non-sequitur if there ever was one. A reasonable person would realize that nobody is advocating that religion trample over all laws. But it does require a balancing act, as any liberal would tell you people's preferences should generally be respected. To completely ignore preferences just because they are religious is similar to the religious fascism that Europeans disdain, in which they ignore preferences just because they find them deviant. To suggest this one religious exemption equates to exempting religion from everything is evidence of your biased view, because that sort of conclusion defies logic and empirical evidence.
Look at your own biases. Just because your preferences on animal welfare doesn't come from some sky-god doesn't mean it's any less arbitrary than religious preferences.
So what is the magic number? Why is 10 seconds of suffering a-oke but a minute of suffering not?
Please what is the magic number at wich things go from:
"Ancient ritual we should respect cause it's ancient!"
"This is so sick they are hurting an animal for no reason!"
Is it 1 minute and 12 seconds?
The fact is that i don't mind what crazy voodoo they want to perform on the cow, all i ask of them is that they knock the damn thing out before they go about it. It's a perfect compromise if not for the fact that religious people don't care much for compromise and want it all their way. Nobody is saying they can't recite their magic spells or cut the throat and bleed the animal dry. All i ask is that they do it whilst the animal is under so he doesn't feel it.
This is ironic. You are essentially ignoring all evidence contrary to your worldview by rejecting them at the outset as biased. My "worldview" is one of agnosticism. I have no a priori viewpoint on the efficacy of ritualistic slaughter, since I don't care about Kashrut or Halal, nor am I strong believer in animal rights
This would be ironic if my reasons didn't make sense. One of the most important things you can learn is being able to judge the validity of sources.
If you would be honest for a second you would admit that jews and muslims that practice their faith actively are not unbiased people in this situation. They will always steer the research to the conclusion they need.
One the one hand you have the religious people that do a "research" and want to keep ritual slaughtering. They have motivation to cheat.
On the other hand you have the university of wageningen wich has no reason at all to cheat and accusing them of bad research is a massive accusation that would completely undermine the entire institution if it was true.
Be honest and weigh the two sides against each other. The university is ofcourse less biased.
"if you can handle that truth" hahahah ha ha ha.... thanks, my meat will taste better today thanks to this wonderful thread.
This would really bother me...if i actually was a vegetarian. But my meat also tasted great tonight...soooo...again you seem to have trouble sticking to the actuall topic. This is not a topic about how tasty meat is.
On June 30 2011 03:37 zalz wrote: So what is the magic number? Why is 10 seconds of suffering a-oke but a minute of suffering not?
Please what is the magic number at wich things go from:
"Ancient ritual we should respect cause it's ancient!"
"This is so sick they are hurting an animal for no reason!"
Is it 1 minute and 12 seconds?
Like most things in life if you're not a religious fanatic, there is no bright-line rule.
The fact is that i don't mind what crazy voodoo they want to perform on the cow, all i ask of them is that they knock the damn thing out before they go about it. It's a perfect compromise if not for the fact that religious people don't care much for compromise and want it all their way. Nobody is saying they can't recite their magic spells or cut the throat and bleed the animal dry. All i ask is that they do it whilst the animal is under so he doesn't feel it.
Again, you completely discount the preferences of people when they clash against your values; this is what religious fascists do. If you weren't so biased, you would realize this value of weighing any amount of animal suffering above all else is not based on any scientific principles, it's just as arbitrary a preference as wanting the animal to not be unconscious when it is killed. A priori, it's simply not possible to say which is more moral than the other.
One the one hand you have the religious people that do a "research" and want to keep ritual slaughtering. They have motivation to cheat.
On the other hand you have the university of wageningen wich has no reason at all to cheat and accusing them of bad research is a massive accusation that would completely undermine the entire institution if it was true.
Again, your values make you say those who disagree with you are biased, and those who agree with you are not. It's also a massive accusation to say the research that supports ritual slaughter, if it is properly done and peer-reviewed, is bad.
Unlike the other thread where some idiot left dogs in a piping-hot car to die, this is a much different case. The animals in question are bred for eating. They wouldn't even exist without our desire to mass-produce them for eating purposes. The animal is going to die anyways, whats the difference if it is stunned first, and then has its head chopped off, or just has its head chopped off. Its gonna die in <10 seconds either way. However that is really beside the point. The right of individuals to exercise their own beliefs/traditions religious or otherwise, so long as it does not cause undue harm to someone very much trumps any potential animal cruelty. We breed them, to kill and eat them. If you want to get really down to the basics here - their entire existence from conception to death is cruel. And for the record, to anyone who hasn't got an electrical shock before. Getting 'stunned' hurts to all high hell, its just as 'cruel' as killing the animal outright. They are a food source people, 95% of all livestock that is on the Earth today would not have existed, nor would their ancestors, and ancestors before that - none of them would have existed, if we didn't domesticate and start mass-producing them to eat. We can go on and on about what is and what is not animal cruelty, but the fact is the animals in question are FOOD. If you really cared that much you'd be a vegen.
On June 30 2011 02:29 Nuf wrote: It's a tradition, that many many people have used, for many years. Now they see something wrong with it? No. It's not more cruelty to animals, than to put them to sleep, for them to not wake up for the morning sun. They die either way.
By that same logic, isn't burning alive just as "humane" as lethal injection? I mean, in the end both people die so there should be no difference?
This is a false dichotomy. There is just as much evidence showing the religious method is less painful as there is showing it is more painful. It seems like people just believe the side they like more. Since there is conflicting evidence you can't compare halal/kosher slaughter to burning alive.
Seriously, the level of unthinking irrationalism from the anti-religious side borders on... religion.
This comment made me grin. I agree.
From a purely neutral standpoint, if people are willing to pay for it then I see no reason why it can't continue. The meat is probably tougher though.People claiming its cruelty to animals would be interested to learn the many double standards that would be present in the meat industry if this in particular was "crossing the line" from Standard procedure to animal cruelty.
We are talking about ritual slaughter, that is the subject. Can you try and stay on subject? Do you think you could do that for me?
Over a dozen time people have tried to point to the meat industry and say "well they aren't angels either!". If your arguments are that desperate should you really be defending it?
This topic isn't about the meat industry, it's about ritual slaughter.
I think his point is that they are both inhumane therefore equal.
Stealing an apple and murder are both crime therefore equal...
...oh wait.
We can go on and on about what is and what is not animal cruelty, but the fact is the animals in question are FOOD. If you really cared that much you'd be a vegen.
No, there is a difference between wanting to eat animals and wanting to eat animals while brutally murdering them.
DISCLAIMER: YES, I know these religious slaughters may or may not be inhumane, but that is irrelevant when we are arguing the idea behind this law, not the specifics.
Again, you completely discount the preferences of people when they clash against your values; this is what religious fascists do. If you weren't so biased, you would realize this value of weighing any amount of animal suffering above all else is not based on any scientific principles, it's just as arbitrary a preference as wanting the animal to not be unconscious when it is killed. A priori, it's simply not possible to say which is more moral than the other.
Ooh that's great. "That's what religious fascists do".
Oke...and? Religious fascists also breath, i tend to enjoy breathing, am i now a religious fascists? Being atheist i would have expected to be called a lot of things but i must admit this one is a bit of a stretch. But you may proceed with the obligated pussy-footing of how you didn't really call me a religious fascists, you just compard me to the possibility of the blah blah blah.
It is based on logic reasoning. Suffering of the animal is real. Religious benefits are false. As such not stunning the animal gives nothing whilst stunning the animal prevents animal suffering. There are no logical benefits to ritual slaughter but there are benefits to stunning the animal. It is as simple as that.
Again, your values make you say those who disagree with you are biased, and those who agree with you are not. It's also a massive accusation to say the research that supports ritual slaughter, if it is properly done and peer-reviewed, is bad.
A prime example of the danger of trying to be the tolerant "everyone is the same" fellow. You are now seriously suggesting that religious institutions and universities take their unbiased nature equally serious.
The fact is that universities handle extremely strict rules on being unbiased and any researcher that doesn't follow the strict rules or is considered to be manipulating the facts will get crushed by peer reviews and will even be fired if he keeps going. The scientific world filters itself from those that cannot do unbiased research work.
Religious insitutions don't do this at all. There is no culture of being unbiased. Being unbiased is not a virtue. The tobaco industry is not equally reliable as a university.
You barely understand that massive accusation you are making. To suggest that this university is not unbiased is catastrophical if it were to be true. People would lose their damn jobs, funding would dry up in a snap.
To suggest this university is biased is like suggesting that someone is a murderer. If you are going to make such a reputation destroying claim then you need some damn proof. Until that point the university has earned it's reputation and you have no right to tarnish that just because they don't say what you want them to say. Universities are not your puppets, they tell the truth, not what you want or need them to say. If they don't then they get swiftly punished for it.
Religious groups don't have that kind of a mentality. Their funding doesn't go down if they lie. Hell their funding probably does down if they release anything that doesn't promote their religious intrests. No religious group will ever bring out an unbiased research, the outcome must always be in their favour. They can't help it because they must serve the hand that feeds them.
In the end it all comes down to money. If a university is not unbiased it will lose funding. If a religious group does not promote religious intrests then it will lose funding.
Universities have a monetary incentive to be honest. Religious groups have monetary incentive to always speak the same message regardless of the truth. If they have to lie for their funding they will lie.
Finally there is motive. The religious groups have motive to lie, they want to keep their religion going in all it's forms. This university has no motivation to lie, it simply does research and concludes the truth derived from the work.
When I read about things like this I can't help to think about what the discussion would be like if it was about doing it to for example cats. I would put a lot of money on that death penalty would be mentioned, and so on.
I just eat meat basically every day, without trying to justify it.
On June 29 2011 16:52 ampson wrote: Traditions. This is what people believe needs to be done for their gods here, people. And it's not like a slit neck is a slow and painful death if done right.
well... if ur religion tells you to slit the throat of an animal, otherwise ur not allowed to eat it you have a pretty dumb religion T_T. No offense to any muslims and jews but in my opinion Religion is very very outdated and doesn't bring much good too this world (same goes for Christianity and the rest dont worry).
You just missed the basic point of religion all together, and based your point on a circular argument: Religion is invalid, therefor it makes no sense to practice it, therefor religion is invalid.
Saying that religious people should stop believing in religion is like saying to the sheep on the field that they should stop caring about the sheepherder – No matter if you believe in him, his is still gonna be there, controlling life, death and everything in between.
The basic religious argument might be logically invalid in your eyes, but that is simply because you presume that there is no God, until you accept that religious people know for certain that there is a God just as sure as the sheep know about the sheepherder, you are not going to understand religion.
That is also why this poll is totally biased. If you know that there is an all-powerfull being giving you orders, that created both you and the animals, then there really is no question of wether you follow orders or not.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but people don't 'know' there is a god. You cannot know if there is a god. For example, even if the story of Mozes was true and he really encountered a bush on fire that spoke to him, that does not somehow imply a divine creator.
And by the way, the sheep know about the sheepherder because they can touch him, they can smell him and they can see him. Not to mention they can see the sheepherders influence on the world. Empirical evidence. A sheep can prove the sheepherder is real (if the sheep had sufficient intelligence). A person cannot prove God is real. "Because I said so" is not a valid argument, nor is it evidence of anything.
It probably makes no sense to argue about this, since its only comprehendible if you actually want to understand it. The point is though that there are more than one way to get about knowledge. In fact you listed two different ways yourself: logic and empirical evidence. Both of which can be used to prove the existence of a God btw. There are numerous logical proofs of Gods existence, and f.ex. miracles are perfectly acceptable as empirical evidence of Gods existence as well. Finally one could claim that there are even more ways to prove something then via logic or empirical evidence. One example of this could be feelings: you cannot prove via logic or empirical evidence that you love your girlfriend, but I'm sure that both you and her don't doubt it for a second.
This all sounds like Im trying to prove the existence of a christian God. Im not though, Im just trying to show you cannot understand religion from an atheist point of view. Saying that f.e.x christianity is about believing in the existence of a God is missing the point, its not the existence but the goodness of God that they believe in - they trust in God. Im sure that a lot of christians are in doubt (and probably also about the existence of their God), but there are also a lot of christians (and muslims, jews, hindus etc.) that know for certain that their God exists.
On June 30 2011 02:29 Nuf wrote: It's a tradition, that many many people have used, for many years. Now they see something wrong with it? No. It's not more cruelty to animals, than to put them to sleep, for them to not wake up for the morning sun. They die either way.
By that same logic, isn't burning alive just as "humane" as lethal injection? I mean, in the end both people die so there should be no difference?
This is a false dichotomy. There is just as much evidence showing the religious method is less painful as there is showing it is more painful. It seems like people just believe the side they like more. Since there is conflicting evidence you can't compare halal/kosher slaughter to burning alive.
Seriously, the level of unthinking irrationalism from the anti-religious side borders on... religion.
This comment made me grin. I agree.
From a purely neutral standpoint, if people are willing to pay for it then I see no reason why it can't continue. The meat is probably tougher though.People claiming its cruelty to animals would be interested to learn the many double standards that would be present in the meat industry if this in particular was "crossing the line" from Standard procedure to animal cruelty.
We are talking about ritual slaughter, that is the subject. Can you try and stay on subject? Do you think you could do that for me?
Over a dozen time people have tried to point to the meat industry and say "well they aren't angels either!". If your arguments are that desperate should you really be defending it?
This topic isn't about the meat industry, it's about ritual slaughter.
Like I said, I was trying to be neutral. From a purely "pros and cons" standpoint, i see no reason this shouldn't continue. Does the animal suffer a bit more? Maybe, everything presented in this thread points to this being inconclusive though. Either way, I simply don't value the life of the cows enough to care. I know, I'm worse than hitler
Yes its ritual slaughter. I get it. They pay a little extra for it, big deal.
On June 30 2011 04:31 Hasudk wrote:It probably makes no sense to argue about this, since its only comprehendible if you actually want to understand it.
Isn't everything only understandable if you want to understand it?
The point is though that there are more than one way to get about knowledge. In fact you listed two different ways yourself: logic and empirical evidence. Both of which can be used to prove the existence of a God btw. There are numerous logical proofs of Gods existence, and f.ex. miracles are perfectly acceptable as empirical evidence of Gods existence as well.
Miracles are not evidence of anything. Miracles are simply unexplainable things. Something that is unexplainable does not imply a God, because that would be an explanation and therefore a miracle would not be unexplainable. Also, I've never heard of a proof of a God using logic. Please direct me to one so that I can find a debunk for it
Finally one could claim that there are even more ways to prove something then via logic or empirical evidence. One example of this could be feelings: you cannot prove via logic or empirical evidence that you love your girlfriend, but I'm sure that both you and her don't doubt it for a second.
If we are talking about knowledge, you can only prove something with the scientific method. Loving your girlfriend has nothing to do with knowledge and facts.
This all sounds like Im trying to prove the existence of a christian God. Im not though, Im just trying to show you cannot understand religion from an atheist point of view.
Of course you can understand religion from an atheist point of view. Religion is simply faith without evidence. Religion and it's teachings cannot be used as evidence for anything.
Saying that f.e.x christianity is about believing in the existence of a God is missing the point, its not the existence but the goodness of God that they believe in - they trust in God. Im sure that a lot of christians are in doubt (and probably also about the existence of their God), but there are also a lot of christians (and muslims, jews, hindus etc.) that know for certain that their God exists.
You cannot know for certain that their God exists. Even if 'God' talked to them. Even if a bush ignited in front of their eyes and it spoke to them. There are a million explanations for those things and a God is just one of them.
I hope that makes sense =)
I'm sorry, but it didn't make sense at all
I'd prefer if we didn't continue this discussion as this thread is not about religion but about inhumana slaughter.
On June 30 2011 02:29 Nuf wrote: It's a tradition, that many many people have used, for many years. Now they see something wrong with it? No. It's not more cruelty to animals, than to put them to sleep, for them to not wake up for the morning sun. They die either way.
By that same logic, isn't burning alive just as "humane" as lethal injection? I mean, in the end both people die so there should be no difference?
This is a false dichotomy. There is just as much evidence showing the religious method is less painful as there is showing it is more painful. It seems like people just believe the side they like more. Since there is conflicting evidence you can't compare halal/kosher slaughter to burning alive.
Seriously, the level of unthinking irrationalism from the anti-religious side borders on... religion.
This comment made me grin. I agree.
From a purely neutral standpoint, if people are willing to pay for it then I see no reason why it can't continue. The meat is probably tougher though.People claiming its cruelty to animals would be interested to learn the many double standards that would be present in the meat industry if this in particular was "crossing the line" from Standard procedure to animal cruelty.
We are talking about ritual slaughter, that is the subject. Can you try and stay on subject? Do you think you could do that for me?
Over a dozen time people have tried to point to the meat industry and say "well they aren't angels either!". If your arguments are that desperate should you really be defending it?
This topic isn't about the meat industry, it's about ritual slaughter.
Like I said, I was trying to be neutral. From a purely "pros and cons" standpoint, i see no reason this shouldn't continue.
By the sound of it, you have an agenda against this practice because it is as you say "ritual slaughter" and you find this primitive or foolish for the 21th century. I'm putting words in your mouth i suppose but I really don't see how throwing labels around makes the conversation any more productive.
Yes its ritual slaughter. I get it. They pay a little extra for it, big deal.
Pro: Nothing Con: Against the law
But maybe that's just me. I really can't come up with any pros. I don't even consider 'maybe more painful' a con since I don't know if that's true. If it is then we can add it to the cons. That it would be less painful sounds very unlikely.
On June 29 2011 16:52 ampson wrote: Traditions. This is what people believe needs to be done for their gods here, people. And it's not like a slit neck is a slow and painful death if done right.
well... if ur religion tells you to slit the throat of an animal, otherwise ur not allowed to eat it you have a pretty dumb religion T_T. No offense to any muslims and jews but in my opinion Religion is very very outdated and doesn't bring much good too this world (same goes for Christianity and the rest dont worry).
You just missed the basic point of religion all together, and based your point on a circular argument: Religion is invalid, therefor it makes no sense to practice it, therefor religion is invalid.
Saying that religious people should stop believing in religion is like saying to the sheep on the field that they should stop caring about the sheepherder – No matter if you believe in him, his is still gonna be there, controlling life, death and everything in between.
The basic religious argument might be logically invalid in your eyes, but that is simply because you presume that there is no God, until you accept that religious people know for certain that there is a God just as sure as the sheep know about the sheepherder, you are not going to understand religion.
That is also why this poll is totally biased. If you know that there is an all-powerfull being giving you orders, that created both you and the animals, then there really is no question of wether you follow orders or not.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but people don't 'know' there is a god. You cannot know if there is a god. For example, even if the story of Mozes was true and he really encountered a bush on fire that spoke to him, that does not somehow imply a divine creator.
And by the way, the sheep know about the sheepherder because they can touch him, they can smell him and they can see him. Not to mention they can see the sheepherders influence on the world. Empirical evidence. A sheep can prove the sheepherder is real (if the sheep had sufficient intelligence). A person cannot prove God is real. "Because I said so" is not a valid argument, nor is it evidence of anything.
It probably makes no sense to argue about this, since its only comprehendible if you actually want to understand it. The point is though that there are more than one way to get about knowledge. In fact you listed two different ways yourself: logic and empirical evidence. Both of which can be used to prove the existence of a God btw. There are numerous logical proofs of Gods existence, and f.ex. miracles are perfectly acceptable as empirical evidence of Gods existence as well. Finally one could claim that there are even more ways to prove something then via logic or empirical evidence. One example of this could be feelings: you cannot prove via logic or empirical evidence that you love your girlfriend, but I'm sure that both you and her don't doubt it for a second.
This all sounds like Im trying to prove the existence of a christian God. Im not though, Im just trying to show you cannot understand religion from an atheist point of view. Saying that f.e.x christianity is about believing in the existence of a God is missing the point, its not the existence but the goodness of God that they believe in - they trust in God. Im sure that a lot of christians are in doubt (and probably also about the existence of their God), but there are also a lot of christians (and muslims, jews, hindus etc.) that know for certain that their God exists.
I hope that makes sense =)
I don't think the bolded part was a great argument. Feelings seem to be relatively simple and I'm quite sure there is plenty of so called empirical evidence in that field. And logic defines proof, you can't for example make someone with a properly working brain believe you or change the persons opinion without logic, even if the logic happens to be flawed. Other than that I think the thread is supposed to be about how we kill animals, not the existence of gods.
On June 30 2011 02:29 Nuf wrote: It's a tradition, that many many people have used, for many years. Now they see something wrong with it? No. It's not more cruelty to animals, than to put them to sleep, for them to not wake up for the morning sun. They die either way.
By that same logic, isn't burning alive just as "humane" as lethal injection? I mean, in the end both people die so there should be no difference?
This is a false dichotomy. There is just as much evidence showing the religious method is less painful as there is showing it is more painful. It seems like people just believe the side they like more. Since there is conflicting evidence you can't compare halal/kosher slaughter to burning alive.
Seriously, the level of unthinking irrationalism from the anti-religious side borders on... religion.
This comment made me grin. I agree.
From a purely neutral standpoint, if people are willing to pay for it then I see no reason why it can't continue. The meat is probably tougher though.People claiming its cruelty to animals would be interested to learn the many double standards that would be present in the meat industry if this in particular was "crossing the line" from Standard procedure to animal cruelty.
We are talking about ritual slaughter, that is the subject. Can you try and stay on subject? Do you think you could do that for me?
Over a dozen time people have tried to point to the meat industry and say "well they aren't angels either!". If your arguments are that desperate should you really be defending it?
This topic isn't about the meat industry, it's about ritual slaughter.
Like I said, I was trying to be neutral. From a purely "pros and cons" standpoint, i see no reason this shouldn't continue. Does the animal suffer a bit more? Maybe, everything presented in this thread points to this being inconclusive though. Either way, I simply don't value the life of the cows enough to care. I know, I'm worse than hitler
Yes its ritual slaughter. I get it. They pay a little extra for it, big deal.
An agenda because i call it ritual slaughter...
Seriously what is this? You know who else calls it ritual slaughter? The people that fucking do it...
Ritual slaughter is not a derogatory term in any way, shape or form.
The research is about as inconclusive as wether or not smoking causes health problems. You know on the one hand you have all these fine gentlemen that get paid by the tobaca industry to find out and on the other hand you have universities that try to actually do an unbiased research project about it.
You can call it inconclusive if you are not able to poke through unreliable sources. If you can't poke through unreliable sources you are at victim of believing false ideas. Being able to spot good sources from heavily biased sources is essential if you want to protect your mind from false ideas.
On June 29 2011 21:12 GGitsJack wrote: I'm christian but I still believe their traditions should be be more priorized, the results for me reek of people not liking muslims / jews as much in general, but I have sympathy for the dudes =/
Wich is ironic given how the two groups of people who both want this right actually can't stand each other.
Most people, like you, don't know that muslims and jews don't hate each other. When I speak of muslims, I hope everyone knows who I'm referring.
On June 29 2011 16:52 ampson wrote: Traditions. This is what people believe needs to be done for their gods here, people. And it's not like a slit neck is a slow and painful death if done right.
well... if ur religion tells you to slit the throat of an animal, otherwise ur not allowed to eat it you have a pretty dumb religion T_T. No offense to any muslims and jews but in my opinion Religion is very very outdated and doesn't bring much good too this world (same goes for Christianity and the rest dont worry).
You just missed the basic point of religion all together, and based your point on a circular argument: Religion is invalid, therefor it makes no sense to practice it, therefor religion is invalid.
Saying that religious people should stop believing in religion is like saying to the sheep on the field that they should stop caring about the sheepherder – No matter if you believe in him, his is still gonna be there, controlling life, death and everything in between.
The basic religious argument might be logically invalid in your eyes, but that is simply because you presume that there is no God, until you accept that religious people know for certain that there is a God just as sure as the sheep know about the sheepherder, you are not going to understand religion.
That is also why this poll is totally biased. If you know that there is an all-powerfull being giving you orders, that created both you and the animals, then there really is no question of wether you follow orders or not.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but people don't 'know' there is a god. You cannot know if there is a god. For example, even if the story of Mozes was true and he really encountered a bush on fire that spoke to him, that does not somehow imply a divine creator.
And by the way, the sheep know about the sheepherder because they can touch him, they can smell him and they can see him. Not to mention they can see the sheepherders influence on the world. Empirical evidence. A sheep can prove the sheepherder is real (if the sheep had sufficient intelligence). A person cannot prove God is real. "Because I said so" is not a valid argument, nor is it evidence of anything.
It probably makes no sense to argue about this, since its only comprehendible if you actually want to understand it. The point is though that there are more than one way to get about knowledge. In fact you listed two different ways yourself: logic and empirical evidence. Both of which can be used to prove the existence of a God btw. There are numerous logical proofs of Gods existence, and f.ex. miracles are perfectly acceptable as empirical evidence of Gods existence as well. Finally one could claim that there are even more ways to prove something then via logic or empirical evidence. One example of this could be feelings: you cannot prove via logic or empirical evidence that you love your girlfriend, but I'm sure that both you and her don't doubt it for a second.
This all sounds like Im trying to prove the existence of a christian God. Im not though, Im just trying to show you cannot understand religion from an atheist point of view. Saying that f.e.x christianity is about believing in the existence of a God is missing the point, its not the existence but the goodness of God that they believe in - they trust in God. Im sure that a lot of christians are in doubt (and probably also about the existence of their God), but there are also a lot of christians (and muslims, jews, hindus etc.) that know for certain that their God exists.
I hope that makes sense =)
Of course you can understand religion from an atheistic viewpoint. I'd love for you to show me these supposed logical proofs for God's existence, you must be a genius. Also, how can more than one religion know their God exists for certain...that by definition is contradictory. Sorry, your hope fell through, none of that made sense, perhaps you should ask God for some assistance?
"Just to clarify, were talking about the comfort of pigs,cows, etc. right?
I don't understand how this is an issue.
They are pigs, cows,etc. If the farmer owns them, then he can do whatever he wants with his property.
I have trouble understanding why the method of killing animals for food needs to be conducive to the animals comfort. As long as it is sanitary and there will be no epidemics then there should not be an issue."
WOW
thats exactly the reason why humanity are able to destroy themselves, or doing "unnatural" things to same race. really, i hate humans, if i would choose to save a dog or a child, sure it would be the dog.
On June 30 2011 04:58 JohnnyReverb wrote: "Just to clarify, were talking about the comfort of pigs,cows, etc. right?
I don't understand how this is an issue.
They are pigs, cows,etc. If the farmer owns them, then he can do whatever he wants with his property.
I have trouble understanding why the method of killing animals for food needs to be conducive to the animals comfort. As long as it is sanitary and there will be no epidemics then there should not be an issue."
WOW
thats exactly the reason why humanity are able to destroy themselves, or doing "unnatural" things to same race. really, i hate humans, if i would choose to save a dog or a child, sure it would be the dog.
On June 29 2011 21:12 GGitsJack wrote: I'm christian but I still believe their traditions should be be more priorized, the results for me reek of people not liking muslims / jews as much in general, but I have sympathy for the dudes =/
Wich is ironic given how the two groups of people who both want this right actually can't stand each other.
Most people, like you, don't know that muslims and jews don't hate each other. When I speak of muslims, I hope everyone knows who I'm referring.
Not true. Muslims are infact statistically more anti-semitic then other groups. This is regarding EU muslims. This isn't me making it up, this is actuall scientific research.
The polled muslims living in Brussels showed 50% of them being anti-semitic.
The scary part of the research was how the anti-semitism did not appear to drop off among higher educated as it does for most other groups.
I know you want a picture perfect world but i don't think you have earned the right to deny reality. There is a problem between muslims and jews, there is a great deal of friction between both groups. Denying this doesn't make it go away.
On June 30 2011 02:29 Nuf wrote: It's a tradition, that many many people have used, for many years. Now they see something wrong with it? No. It's not more cruelty to animals, than to put them to sleep, for them to not wake up for the morning sun. They die either way.
By that same logic, isn't burning alive just as "humane" as lethal injection? I mean, in the end both people die so there should be no difference?
This is a false dichotomy. There is just as much evidence showing the religious method is less painful as there is showing it is more painful. It seems like people just believe the side they like more. Since there is conflicting evidence you can't compare halal/kosher slaughter to burning alive.
Seriously, the level of unthinking irrationalism from the anti-religious side borders on... religion.
This comment made me grin. I agree.
From a purely neutral standpoint, if people are willing to pay for it then I see no reason why it can't continue. The meat is probably tougher though.People claiming its cruelty to animals would be interested to learn the many double standards that would be present in the meat industry if this in particular was "crossing the line" from Standard procedure to animal cruelty.
We are talking about ritual slaughter, that is the subject. Can you try and stay on subject? Do you think you could do that for me?
Over a dozen time people have tried to point to the meat industry and say "well they aren't angels either!". If your arguments are that desperate should you really be defending it?
This topic isn't about the meat industry, it's about ritual slaughter.
Like I said, I was trying to be neutral. From a purely "pros and cons" standpoint, i see no reason this shouldn't continue. Does the animal suffer a bit more? Maybe, everything presented in this thread points to this being inconclusive though. Either way, I simply don't value the life of the cows enough to care. I know, I'm worse than hitler
Yes its ritual slaughter. I get it. They pay a little extra for it, big deal.
An agenda because i call it ritual slaughter...
Seriously what is this? You know who else calls it ritual slaughter? The people that fucking do it...
Ritual slaughter is not a derogatory term in any way, shape or form.
The research is about as inconclusive as wether or not smoking causes health problems. You know on the one hand you have all these fine gentlemen that get paid by the tobaca industry to find out and on the other hand you have universities that try to actually do an unbiased research project about it.
You can call it inconclusive if you are not able to poke through unreliable sources. If you can't poke through unreliable sources you are at victim of believing false ideas. Being able to spot good sources from heavily biased sources is essential if you want to protect your mind from false ideas.
Listen, lets say your right, the cow thus suffers 20 seconds instead of 8 seconds or whatever. Is the cow's well being really so fucking valuable that its worth creating laws over such a small matter? It makes a few idiots happy so who cares?
I'm sorry, but this argument just doesn't even make sense to me. I'm not opposed to all animal rights, but this is one case where there is just way too much prioritization on the animals.
On June 30 2011 04:58 JohnnyReverb wrote: "Just to clarify, were talking about the comfort of pigs,cows, etc. right?
I don't understand how this is an issue.
They are pigs, cows,etc. If the farmer owns them, then he can do whatever he wants with his property.
I have trouble understanding why the method of killing animals for food needs to be conducive to the animals comfort. As long as it is sanitary and there will be no epidemics then there should not be an issue."
WOW
thats exactly the reason why humanity are able to destroy themselves, or doing "unnatural" things to same race. really, i hate humans, if i would choose to save a dog or a child, sure it would be the dog.
human rapes human. thats how we gonna end.
Do you normally do this kind of "deep" thinking on a daily basis? If so, please find some psychological help.
On June 29 2011 21:12 GGitsJack wrote: I'm christian but I still believe their traditions should be be more priorized, the results for me reek of people not liking muslims / jews as much in general, but I have sympathy for the dudes =/
Wich is ironic given how the two groups of people who both want this right actually can't stand each other.
Most people, like you, don't know that muslims and jews don't hate each other. When I speak of muslims, I hope everyone knows who I'm referring.
Not true. Muslims are infact statistically more anti-semitic then other groups. This is regarding EU muslims. This isn't me making it up, this is actuall scientific research.
The polled muslims living in Brussels showed 50% of them being anti-semitic.
The scary part of the research was how the anti-semitism did not appear to drop off among higher educated as it does for most other groups.
I know you want a picture perfect world but i don't think you have earned the right to deny reality. There is a problem between muslims and jews, there is a great deal of friction between both groups. Denying this doesn't make it go away.
Why attempt to sugar coat it, especially by using special pro-one side words like antisemite. If the majority of any of the sides valued people on the other side as high as their own the type of conflict we have today wouldn't exist, simple as that.
Just a little biology for you guys. Cutting the main blood vessels in the throat deprives the animals brain of blood therefore no pain/fear can be felt.
On June 30 2011 04:58 JohnnyReverb wrote: "Just to clarify, were talking about the comfort of pigs,cows, etc. right?
I don't understand how this is an issue.
They are pigs, cows,etc. If the farmer owns them, then he can do whatever he wants with his property.
I have trouble understanding why the method of killing animals for food needs to be conducive to the animals comfort. As long as it is sanitary and there will be no epidemics then there should not be an issue."
WOW
thats exactly the reason why humanity are able to destroy themselves, or doing "unnatural" things to same race. really, i hate humans, if i would choose to save a dog or a child, sure it would be the dog.
human rapes human. thats how we gonna end.
And you are one of us, a member of us humanity. Tell me do you wish to relinquish your status as a human being? If you do let us know, If you really don't want be a human being you don't have to
On June 30 2011 02:29 Nuf wrote: It's a tradition, that many many people have used, for many years. Now they see something wrong with it? No. It's not more cruelty to animals, than to put them to sleep, for them to not wake up for the morning sun. They die either way.
By that same logic, isn't burning alive just as "humane" as lethal injection? I mean, in the end both people die so there should be no difference?
This is a false dichotomy. There is just as much evidence showing the religious method is less painful as there is showing it is more painful. It seems like people just believe the side they like more. Since there is conflicting evidence you can't compare halal/kosher slaughter to burning alive.
Seriously, the level of unthinking irrationalism from the anti-religious side borders on... religion.
This comment made me grin. I agree.
From a purely neutral standpoint, if people are willing to pay for it then I see no reason why it can't continue. The meat is probably tougher though.People claiming its cruelty to animals would be interested to learn the many double standards that would be present in the meat industry if this in particular was "crossing the line" from Standard procedure to animal cruelty.
We are talking about ritual slaughter, that is the subject. Can you try and stay on subject? Do you think you could do that for me?
Over a dozen time people have tried to point to the meat industry and say "well they aren't angels either!". If your arguments are that desperate should you really be defending it?
This topic isn't about the meat industry, it's about ritual slaughter.
Like I said, I was trying to be neutral. From a purely "pros and cons" standpoint, i see no reason this shouldn't continue. Does the animal suffer a bit more? Maybe, everything presented in this thread points to this being inconclusive though. Either way, I simply don't value the life of the cows enough to care. I know, I'm worse than hitler
Yes its ritual slaughter. I get it. They pay a little extra for it, big deal.
An agenda because i call it ritual slaughter...
Seriously what is this? You know who else calls it ritual slaughter? The people that fucking do it...
Ritual slaughter is not a derogatory term in any way, shape or form.
The research is about as inconclusive as wether or not smoking causes health problems. You know on the one hand you have all these fine gentlemen that get paid by the tobaca industry to find out and on the other hand you have universities that try to actually do an unbiased research project about it.
You can call it inconclusive if you are not able to poke through unreliable sources. If you can't poke through unreliable sources you are at victim of believing false ideas. Being able to spot good sources from heavily biased sources is essential if you want to protect your mind from false ideas.
Listen, lets say your right, the cow thus suffers 20 seconds instead of 8 seconds or whatever. Is the cow's well being really so fucking valuable that its worth creating laws over such a small matter? It makes a few idiots happy so who cares?
I'm sorry, but this argument just doesn't even make sense to me. I'm not opposed to all animal rights, but this is one case where there is just way too much prioritization on the animals.
I don't, simple as that.
I don't think it's too much to expect them to knock the animal out before they begin their little ritual. If sedated the cow suffers 0 seconds since he isn't awake to feel anything.
I don't care if it makes religious people happy. There are a lot of things that make religious people happy that shouldn't be tolerated. Fantasy stories do not give a pass on the modern-world train.
We live in a modern civilized world first. If we have some space for religion to be crazy we can give them some space to be crazy. But if religion clashes with the modern way of doing things then religion can instantly go take a backseat.
Again, religion is not a free pass on following the rule of law.
On June 30 2011 04:58 JohnnyReverb wrote: "Just to clarify, were talking about the comfort of pigs,cows, etc. right?
I don't understand how this is an issue.
They are pigs, cows,etc. If the farmer owns them, then he can do whatever he wants with his property.
I have trouble understanding why the method of killing animals for food needs to be conducive to the animals comfort. As long as it is sanitary and there will be no epidemics then there should not be an issue."
WOW
thats exactly the reason why humanity are able to destroy themselves, or doing "unnatural" things to same race. really, i hate humans, if i would choose to save a dog or a child, sure it would be the dog.
human rapes human. thats how we gonna end.
And you are one of us, a member of us humanity. Tell me do you wish to relinquish your status as a human being? If you do let us know, If you really don't want be a human being you don't have to
Animals are not property and is it really so hard to have a little empathy for the other species on our planet? No wonder most humans feel no empathy for each other if they treat other living beings like shit too.
If you view animals as inferior because of their intellect, and therefore we can do whatever the fuck we want with them, why do you excuse mentally handicapped people from that? Simply because they are humans? Humans are animals too.
On June 30 2011 02:29 Nuf wrote: It's a tradition, that many many people have used, for many years. Now they see something wrong with it? No. It's not more cruelty to animals, than to put them to sleep, for them to not wake up for the morning sun. They die either way.
By that same logic, isn't burning alive just as "humane" as lethal injection? I mean, in the end both people die so there should be no difference?
This is a false dichotomy. There is just as much evidence showing the religious method is less painful as there is showing it is more painful. It seems like people just believe the side they like more. Since there is conflicting evidence you can't compare halal/kosher slaughter to burning alive.
Seriously, the level of unthinking irrationalism from the anti-religious side borders on... religion.
This comment made me grin. I agree.
From a purely neutral standpoint, if people are willing to pay for it then I see no reason why it can't continue. The meat is probably tougher though.People claiming its cruelty to animals would be interested to learn the many double standards that would be present in the meat industry if this in particular was "crossing the line" from Standard procedure to animal cruelty.
We are talking about ritual slaughter, that is the subject. Can you try and stay on subject? Do you think you could do that for me?
Over a dozen time people have tried to point to the meat industry and say "well they aren't angels either!". If your arguments are that desperate should you really be defending it?
This topic isn't about the meat industry, it's about ritual slaughter.
Like I said, I was trying to be neutral. From a purely "pros and cons" standpoint, i see no reason this shouldn't continue. Does the animal suffer a bit more? Maybe, everything presented in this thread points to this being inconclusive though. Either way, I simply don't value the life of the cows enough to care. I know, I'm worse than hitler
Yes its ritual slaughter. I get it. They pay a little extra for it, big deal.
An agenda because i call it ritual slaughter...
Seriously what is this? You know who else calls it ritual slaughter? The people that fucking do it...
Ritual slaughter is not a derogatory term in any way, shape or form.
The research is about as inconclusive as wether or not smoking causes health problems. You know on the one hand you have all these fine gentlemen that get paid by the tobaca industry to find out and on the other hand you have universities that try to actually do an unbiased research project about it.
You can call it inconclusive if you are not able to poke through unreliable sources. If you can't poke through unreliable sources you are at victim of believing false ideas. Being able to spot good sources from heavily biased sources is essential if you want to protect your mind from false ideas.
Listen, lets say your right, the cow thus suffers 20 seconds instead of 8 seconds or whatever. Is the cow's well being really so fucking valuable that its worth creating laws over such a small matter? It makes a few idiots happy so who cares?
I'm sorry, but this argument just doesn't even make sense to me. I'm not opposed to all animal rights, but this is one case where there is just way too much prioritization on the animals.
The law exists already, and should be followed accordingly. Changing the law would only "make a few idiots happy", so who cares, right?
On June 29 2011 16:52 ampson wrote: Traditions. This is what people believe needs to be done for their gods here, people. And it's not like a slit neck is a slow and painful death if done right.
well... if ur religion tells you to slit the throat of an animal, otherwise ur not allowed to eat it you have a pretty dumb religion T_T. No offense to any muslims and jews but in my opinion Religion is very very outdated and doesn't bring much good too this world (same goes for Christianity and the rest dont worry).
You just missed the basic point of religion all together, and based your point on a circular argument: Religion is invalid, therefor it makes no sense to practice it, therefor religion is invalid.
Saying that religious people should stop believing in religion is like saying to the sheep on the field that they should stop caring about the sheepherder – No matter if you believe in him, his is still gonna be there, controlling life, death and everything in between.
The basic religious argument might be logically invalid in your eyes, but that is simply because you presume that there is no God, until you accept that religious people know for certain that there is a God just as sure as the sheep know about the sheepherder, you are not going to understand religion.
That is also why this poll is totally biased. If you know that there is an all-powerfull being giving you orders, that created both you and the animals, then there really is no question of wether you follow orders or not.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but people don't 'know' there is a god. You cannot know if there is a god. For example, even if the story of Mozes was true and he really encountered a bush on fire that spoke to him, that does not somehow imply a divine creator.
And by the way, the sheep know about the sheepherder because they can touch him, they can smell him and they can see him. Not to mention they can see the sheepherders influence on the world. Empirical evidence. A sheep can prove the sheepherder is real (if the sheep had sufficient intelligence). A person cannot prove God is real. "Because I said so" is not a valid argument, nor is it evidence of anything.
It probably makes no sense to argue about this, since its only comprehendible if you actually want to understand it. The point is though that there are more than one way to get about knowledge. In fact you listed two different ways yourself: logic and empirical evidence. Both of which can be used to prove the existence of a God btw. There are numerous logical proofs of Gods existence, and f.ex. miracles are perfectly acceptable as empirical evidence of Gods existence as well. Finally one could claim that there are even more ways to prove something then via logic or empirical evidence. One example of this could be feelings: you cannot prove via logic or empirical evidence that you love your girlfriend, but I'm sure that both you and her don't doubt it for a second.
This all sounds like Im trying to prove the existence of a christian God. Im not though, Im just trying to show you cannot understand religion from an atheist point of view. Saying that f.e.x christianity is about believing in the existence of a God is missing the point, its not the existence but the goodness of God that they believe in - they trust in God. Im sure that a lot of christians are in doubt (and probably also about the existence of their God), but there are also a lot of christians (and muslims, jews, hindus etc.) that know for certain that their God exists.
I hope that makes sense =)
How exactly is a so called "Miracle" an accepted, empirical, proof? For what? And please show me how to proove the existance of god using logic. If you use the Ontological argument i will seriously laugh out loud, and the proceed to disprove it.
On June 30 2011 02:29 Nuf wrote: It's a tradition, that many many people have used, for many years. Now they see something wrong with it? No. It's not more cruelty to animals, than to put them to sleep, for them to not wake up for the morning sun. They die either way.
By that same logic, isn't burning alive just as "humane" as lethal injection? I mean, in the end both people die so there should be no difference?
This is a false dichotomy. There is just as much evidence showing the religious method is less painful as there is showing it is more painful. It seems like people just believe the side they like more. Since there is conflicting evidence you can't compare halal/kosher slaughter to burning alive.
Seriously, the level of unthinking irrationalism from the anti-religious side borders on... religion.
This comment made me grin. I agree.
From a purely neutral standpoint, if people are willing to pay for it then I see no reason why it can't continue. The meat is probably tougher though.People claiming its cruelty to animals would be interested to learn the many double standards that would be present in the meat industry if this in particular was "crossing the line" from Standard procedure to animal cruelty.
We are talking about ritual slaughter, that is the subject. Can you try and stay on subject? Do you think you could do that for me?
Over a dozen time people have tried to point to the meat industry and say "well they aren't angels either!". If your arguments are that desperate should you really be defending it?
This topic isn't about the meat industry, it's about ritual slaughter.
Like I said, I was trying to be neutral. From a purely "pros and cons" standpoint, i see no reason this shouldn't continue. Does the animal suffer a bit more? Maybe, everything presented in this thread points to this being inconclusive though. Either way, I simply don't value the life of the cows enough to care. I know, I'm worse than hitler
Yes its ritual slaughter. I get it. They pay a little extra for it, big deal.
An agenda because i call it ritual slaughter...
Seriously what is this? You know who else calls it ritual slaughter? The people that fucking do it...
Ritual slaughter is not a derogatory term in any way, shape or form.
The research is about as inconclusive as wether or not smoking causes health problems. You know on the one hand you have all these fine gentlemen that get paid by the tobaca industry to find out and on the other hand you have universities that try to actually do an unbiased research project about it.
You can call it inconclusive if you are not able to poke through unreliable sources. If you can't poke through unreliable sources you are at victim of believing false ideas. Being able to spot good sources from heavily biased sources is essential if you want to protect your mind from false ideas.
Listen, lets say your right, the cow thus suffers 20 seconds instead of 8 seconds or whatever. Is the cow's well being really so fucking valuable that its worth creating laws over such a small matter? It makes a few idiots happy so who cares?
I'm sorry, but this argument just doesn't even make sense to me. I'm not opposed to all animal rights, but this is one case where there is just way too much prioritization on the animals.
The law exists already, and should be followed accordingly. Changing the law would only "make a few idiots happy", so who cares, right?
Or you could look at it the other way.
The law exists, but a few people continue to break it. However, the majority of people don't care THAT much about animal welfare in order to enforce it. If no one cares enough to do something about it, then they're going to continue to break the law with no consequence.
However, since you guys seem to be so defensive about this one point, perhaps you guys can go out and actual do something about it. Unless of course you guys are using this point for another reason, like undermining religion.
On June 30 2011 02:29 Nuf wrote: It's a tradition, that many many people have used, for many years. Now they see something wrong with it? No. It's not more cruelty to animals, than to put them to sleep, for them to not wake up for the morning sun. They die either way.
By that same logic, isn't burning alive just as "humane" as lethal injection? I mean, in the end both people die so there should be no difference?
This is a false dichotomy. There is just as much evidence showing the religious method is less painful as there is showing it is more painful. It seems like people just believe the side they like more. Since there is conflicting evidence you can't compare halal/kosher slaughter to burning alive.
So if you were to be executed, how would you want it done? By lethal injection or should we cut open your arteries? It is quite obvious the religious one is more painful.
I don't see how this is obvious.
One of them you don't feel a thing, the other one you do. How can it be any more obvious!?
By that same logic, isn't burning alive just as "humane" as lethal injection? I mean, in the end both people die so there should be no difference?
This is a false dichotomy. There is just as much evidence showing the religious method is less painful as there is showing it is more painful. It seems like people just believe the side they like more. Since there is conflicting evidence you can't compare halal/kosher slaughter to burning alive.
Seriously, the level of unthinking irrationalism from the anti-religious side borders on... religion.
This comment made me grin. I agree.
From a purely neutral standpoint, if people are willing to pay for it then I see no reason why it can't continue. The meat is probably tougher though.People claiming its cruelty to animals would be interested to learn the many double standards that would be present in the meat industry if this in particular was "crossing the line" from Standard procedure to animal cruelty.
We are talking about ritual slaughter, that is the subject. Can you try and stay on subject? Do you think you could do that for me?
Over a dozen time people have tried to point to the meat industry and say "well they aren't angels either!". If your arguments are that desperate should you really be defending it?
This topic isn't about the meat industry, it's about ritual slaughter.
Like I said, I was trying to be neutral. From a purely "pros and cons" standpoint, i see no reason this shouldn't continue. Does the animal suffer a bit more? Maybe, everything presented in this thread points to this being inconclusive though. Either way, I simply don't value the life of the cows enough to care. I know, I'm worse than hitler
Yes its ritual slaughter. I get it. They pay a little extra for it, big deal.
An agenda because i call it ritual slaughter...
Seriously what is this? You know who else calls it ritual slaughter? The people that fucking do it...
Ritual slaughter is not a derogatory term in any way, shape or form.
The research is about as inconclusive as wether or not smoking causes health problems. You know on the one hand you have all these fine gentlemen that get paid by the tobaca industry to find out and on the other hand you have universities that try to actually do an unbiased research project about it.
You can call it inconclusive if you are not able to poke through unreliable sources. If you can't poke through unreliable sources you are at victim of believing false ideas. Being able to spot good sources from heavily biased sources is essential if you want to protect your mind from false ideas.
Listen, lets say your right, the cow thus suffers 20 seconds instead of 8 seconds or whatever. Is the cow's well being really so fucking valuable that its worth creating laws over such a small matter? It makes a few idiots happy so who cares?
I'm sorry, but this argument just doesn't even make sense to me. I'm not opposed to all animal rights, but this is one case where there is just way too much prioritization on the animals.
The law exists already, and should be followed accordingly. Changing the law would only "make a few idiots happy", so who cares, right?
Or you could look at it the other way.
The law exists, but a few people continue to break it. However, the majority of people don't care THAT much about animal welfare in order to enforce it. If no one cares enough to do something about it, then they're going to continue to break the law with no consequence.
However, since you guys seem to be so defensive about this one point, perhaps you guys can go out and actual do something about it. Unless of course you guys are using this point for another reason, like undermining religion.
I don't really care if the people doing it are religious or not, and I'm no activist, so discussing it over the internet is as much as I'll do about it. If a law isn't being followed it should either be enforced or changed. Since being nice to animals is a good cause I think, enforcing is a better option than letting it go. Obviously they had reasons to make the law to begin with, and unless the reasons have changed it's another reason to enforce it.
Just gief the meat i really dont care you can shot it or put it alive in grinder but as far as i know muslim or jewesh pll wont eat that meat so Netherlands ban cooking the lobsters alive too? i dont think so it seems more like fight of religions not for the love of animals.
By that same logic, isn't burning alive just as "humane" as lethal injection? I mean, in the end both people die so there should be no difference?
This is a false dichotomy. There is just as much evidence showing the religious method is less painful as there is showing it is more painful. It seems like people just believe the side they like more. Since there is conflicting evidence you can't compare halal/kosher slaughter to burning alive.
Seriously, the level of unthinking irrationalism from the anti-religious side borders on... religion.
This comment made me grin. I agree.
From a purely neutral standpoint, if people are willing to pay for it then I see no reason why it can't continue. The meat is probably tougher though.People claiming its cruelty to animals would be interested to learn the many double standards that would be present in the meat industry if this in particular was "crossing the line" from Standard procedure to animal cruelty.
We are talking about ritual slaughter, that is the subject. Can you try and stay on subject? Do you think you could do that for me?
Over a dozen time people have tried to point to the meat industry and say "well they aren't angels either!". If your arguments are that desperate should you really be defending it?
This topic isn't about the meat industry, it's about ritual slaughter.
Like I said, I was trying to be neutral. From a purely "pros and cons" standpoint, i see no reason this shouldn't continue. Does the animal suffer a bit more? Maybe, everything presented in this thread points to this being inconclusive though. Either way, I simply don't value the life of the cows enough to care. I know, I'm worse than hitler
Yes its ritual slaughter. I get it. They pay a little extra for it, big deal.
An agenda because i call it ritual slaughter...
Seriously what is this? You know who else calls it ritual slaughter? The people that fucking do it...
Ritual slaughter is not a derogatory term in any way, shape or form.
The research is about as inconclusive as wether or not smoking causes health problems. You know on the one hand you have all these fine gentlemen that get paid by the tobaca industry to find out and on the other hand you have universities that try to actually do an unbiased research project about it.
You can call it inconclusive if you are not able to poke through unreliable sources. If you can't poke through unreliable sources you are at victim of believing false ideas. Being able to spot good sources from heavily biased sources is essential if you want to protect your mind from false ideas.
Listen, lets say your right, the cow thus suffers 20 seconds instead of 8 seconds or whatever. Is the cow's well being really so fucking valuable that its worth creating laws over such a small matter? It makes a few idiots happy so who cares?
I'm sorry, but this argument just doesn't even make sense to me. I'm not opposed to all animal rights, but this is one case where there is just way too much prioritization on the animals.
The law exists already, and should be followed accordingly. Changing the law would only "make a few idiots happy", so who cares, right?
Or you could look at it the other way.
The law exists, but a few people continue to break it. However, the majority of people don't care THAT much about animal welfare in order to enforce it. If no one cares enough to do something about it, then they're going to continue to break the law with no consequence.
However, since you guys seem to be so defensive about this one point, perhaps you guys can go out and actual do something about it. Unless of course you guys are using this point for another reason, like undermining religion.
Not to mention all the shit people would take from Jews and Muslims if the law was changed/inforced. I mean, just look at what happened to Salman Rushdie when he puplished a book. Imagine what would happen if someone tried to stop "them" from this stuff.
On June 30 2011 02:36 DDAngelo wrote: [quote] This is a false dichotomy. There is just as much evidence showing the religious method is less painful as there is showing it is more painful. It seems like people just believe the side they like more. Since there is conflicting evidence you can't compare halal/kosher slaughter to burning alive.
Seriously, the level of unthinking irrationalism from the anti-religious side borders on... religion.
This comment made me grin. I agree.
From a purely neutral standpoint, if people are willing to pay for it then I see no reason why it can't continue. The meat is probably tougher though.People claiming its cruelty to animals would be interested to learn the many double standards that would be present in the meat industry if this in particular was "crossing the line" from Standard procedure to animal cruelty.
We are talking about ritual slaughter, that is the subject. Can you try and stay on subject? Do you think you could do that for me?
Over a dozen time people have tried to point to the meat industry and say "well they aren't angels either!". If your arguments are that desperate should you really be defending it?
This topic isn't about the meat industry, it's about ritual slaughter.
Like I said, I was trying to be neutral. From a purely "pros and cons" standpoint, i see no reason this shouldn't continue. Does the animal suffer a bit more? Maybe, everything presented in this thread points to this being inconclusive though. Either way, I simply don't value the life of the cows enough to care. I know, I'm worse than hitler
Yes its ritual slaughter. I get it. They pay a little extra for it, big deal.
An agenda because i call it ritual slaughter...
Seriously what is this? You know who else calls it ritual slaughter? The people that fucking do it...
Ritual slaughter is not a derogatory term in any way, shape or form.
The research is about as inconclusive as wether or not smoking causes health problems. You know on the one hand you have all these fine gentlemen that get paid by the tobaca industry to find out and on the other hand you have universities that try to actually do an unbiased research project about it.
You can call it inconclusive if you are not able to poke through unreliable sources. If you can't poke through unreliable sources you are at victim of believing false ideas. Being able to spot good sources from heavily biased sources is essential if you want to protect your mind from false ideas.
Listen, lets say your right, the cow thus suffers 20 seconds instead of 8 seconds or whatever. Is the cow's well being really so fucking valuable that its worth creating laws over such a small matter? It makes a few idiots happy so who cares?
I'm sorry, but this argument just doesn't even make sense to me. I'm not opposed to all animal rights, but this is one case where there is just way too much prioritization on the animals.
The law exists already, and should be followed accordingly. Changing the law would only "make a few idiots happy", so who cares, right?
Or you could look at it the other way.
The law exists, but a few people continue to break it. However, the majority of people don't care THAT much about animal welfare in order to enforce it. If no one cares enough to do something about it, then they're going to continue to break the law with no consequence.
However, since you guys seem to be so defensive about this one point, perhaps you guys can go out and actual do something about it. Unless of course you guys are using this point for another reason, like undermining religion.
Not to mention all the shit people would take from Jews and Muslims if the law was changed/inforced. I mean, just look at what happened to Salman Rushdie when he puplished a book. Imagine what would happen if someone tried to stop "them" from this stuff.
You do realise that the law has allready been passed in Holland right?
We even have animal cops wich are mostly dedicated with dealing with animal rights abuse. How exactly are they going to keep doing what they do? Random checks will see them facing harsh punishment and fines.
How long can you keep trying to "fight the power" until you start raking in those fines and have to start thinking about your business.
People adapt real fast when their income is at stake. Suddenly pleasing that god ain't as important as keeping your company afloat.
It amuses be that people put so much thought into this and "animal welfare." Yet in nature a wolf could slowly tear a cow or such animal to pieces slowly wounding it and eating it alive. Yet because we have a higher IQ or a self-awareness we put so much weight into things like this. Its a dog eat dog world. I can see both sides and agree its somewhat gruesome and if at all possible it would be ideal to stun the animal. But back in the old times they weren't worried about such things when they were repeatedly spearing an animal to death. The bottom line is we are at the top of the food chain and we do what we can to survive. I'd rather a human cut a cows throat to satisfy a religious belief and feed his family then a wild animal have it.
I think unless you are vegetarian or vegan I don't think this should be an issue you are concerned with. Unless it is you trying to debate god vs no god...
On June 30 2011 05:50 SluGGer wrote: It amuses be that people put so much thought into this and "animal welfare." Yet in nature a wolf could slowly tear a cow or such animal to pieces slowly wounding it and eating it alive. Yet because we have a higher IQ or a self-awareness we put so much weight into things like this. Its a dog eat dog world. I can see both sides and agree its somewhat gruesome and if at all possible it would be ideal to stun the animal. But back in the old times they weren't worried about such things when they were repeatedly spearing an animal to death. The bottom line is we are at the top of the food chain and we do what we can to survive. I'd rather a human cut a cows throat to satisfy a religious belief and feed his family then a wild animal have it.
In no sense would i say that a wolf killing pray is wrong. Nor is it wrong for a human to slowly kill an animal in order to survive. Like you said, in general, it's a dog eat dog world. But when you actually have the option, to either kill the animal quick, and without pain, or to slowly let it bleed to death (based only of outdated, absurd and delusional beliefs). That is a significant difference in my honest opinion. "Back in the old days" people also stoned homosexuals. Would it amuse you if people got upset over that practice?
On June 30 2011 05:51 Fattah wrote: I think unless you are vegetarian or vegan I don't think this should be an issue you are concerned with. Unless it is you trying to debate god vs no god...
You do realise it's possible for someone to eat meat but still not wanting to let animals suffer needlessly?
On June 30 2011 05:50 SluGGer wrote: It amuses be that people put so much thought into this and "animal welfare." Yet in nature a wolf could slowly tear a cow or such animal to pieces slowly wounding it and eating it alive. Yet because we have a higher IQ or a self-awareness we put so much weight into things like this. Its a dog eat dog world. I can see both sides and agree its somewhat gruesome and if at all possible it would be ideal to stun the animal. But back in the old times they weren't worried about such things when they were repeatedly spearing an animal to death. The bottom line is we are at the top of the food chain and we do what we can to survive. I'd rather a human cut a cows throat to satisfy a religious belief and feed his family then a wild animal have it.
You do realise that the cows we are talking about don't exist in the wild right?
Domesticated animals are essentially retarded animals. They can't survive without humans taking care of them. Go ahead and release a cow or sheep into the forest and see how long before it either starves or starts trying to eat tree bark.
Just because we used to do things one way don't mean we gotta do things that way forever. We used to take a cart and horse to work. We used to hang people that disagreed with us. We used to do a lot of stupid shit.
People improve and that's how we get where we are today and will get better tommorow. To never improve is like taking a razor sharp knife to the throat of humanity, slithing it and letting it slowly die painfully.
On June 30 2011 04:58 JohnnyReverb wrote: "Just to clarify, were talking about the comfort of pigs,cows, etc. right?
I don't understand how this is an issue.
They are pigs, cows,etc. If the farmer owns them, then he can do whatever he wants with his property.
I have trouble understanding why the method of killing animals for food needs to be conducive to the animals comfort. As long as it is sanitary and there will be no epidemics then there should not be an issue."
WOW
thats exactly the reason why humanity are able to destroy themselves, or doing "unnatural" things to same race. really, i hate humans, if i would choose to save a dog or a child, sure it would be the dog.
human rapes human. thats how we gonna end.
And you are one of us, a member of us humanity. Tell me do you wish to relinquish your status as a human being? If you do let us know, If you really don't want be a human being you don't have to
Animals are not property and is it really so hard to have a little empathy for the other species on our planet? No wonder most humans feel no empathy for each other if they treat other living beings like shit too.
If you view animals as inferior because of their intellect, and therefore we can do whatever the fuck we want with them, why do you excuse mentally handicapped people from that? Simply because they are humans? Humans are animals too.
Retarded people are still humans. And apparently our friend here hates humans. Which he is one. so I mean if he don't want to be human be my guest.
You do realise it's possible for someone to eat meat but still not wanting to let animals suffer needlessly?
Actually, no. I didn't realize that, and I still can't.
Don't quote me on this but I think the reason why Halal slaughter is this way, is because it is (was) believed to be the most painless way to slaughter an animal. Now if you can prove with empirical evidence and statistical data that stunning the animal before Halal slaughter is less painful then I don't see why Muslims wouldn't be more than willing or even satisfied to do it. If there is another less painful way (again, using empirical evidence and statistical data) to slaughter animals that doesn't involve "slitting the throat in one slice" then I don't think I'm qualified enough to talk about it, and frankly neither are you. (assuming you are not a nuero scientist specialized in throat slitting.) In regards to Kosher, I am sorry I can't approach the subject with what limited knowledge I have about it
You do realise it's possible for someone to eat meat but still not wanting to let animals suffer needlessly?
Actually, no. I didn't realize that, and I still can't.
Don't quote me on this but I think the reason why Halal slaughter is this way, is because it is (was) believed to be the most painless way to slaughter an animal. Now if you can prove with empirical evidence and statistical data that stunning the animal before Halal slaughter is less painful then I don't see why Muslims wouldn't be more than willing or even satisfied to do it. If there is another less painful way (again, using empirical evidence and statistical data) to slaughter animals that doesn't involve "slitting the throat in one slice" then I don't think I'm qualified enough to talk about it, and frankly neither are you. (assuming you are not a nuero scientist specialized in throat slitting.) In regards to Kosher, I am sorry I can't approach the subject with what limited knowledge I have about it
You are misplacing the burden. The burden is on the people who are actually doing the killing to show that their way is humane, not for everyone else to find a better solution.
I'm not taking a stance towards which is right since I don't know enough on the subject, but it is a very unfair stance to place the burden on anybody but the killers to show they are doing it in the most humane way.
You do realise it's possible for someone to eat meat but still not wanting to let animals suffer needlessly?
Now if you can prove with empirical evidence and statistical data that stunning the animal before Halal slaughter is less painful then I don't see why Muslims wouldn't be more than willing or even satisfied to do it.
You do realise it's possible for someone to eat meat but still not wanting to let animals suffer needlessly?
Actually, no. I didn't realize that, and I still can't.
Don't quote me on this but I think the reason why Halal slaughter is this way, is because it is (was) believed to be the most painless way to slaughter an animal. Now if you can prove with empirical evidence and statistical data that stunning the animal before Halal slaughter is less painful then I don't see why Muslims wouldn't be more than willing or even satisfied to do it. If there is another less painful way (again, using empirical evidence and statistical data) to slaughter animals that doesn't involve "slitting the throat in one slice" then I don't think I'm qualified enough to talk about it, and frankly neither are you. (assuming you are not a nuero scientist specialized in throat slitting.) In regards to Kosher, I am sorry I can't approach the subject with what limited knowledge I have about it
If it was possble to change a muslims (or any religious persons) mind with simple statistics and empirical evidence, the world would be very VERY different. How many muslims believe in the theory of evolution? And evolution has more evidence going for it than the theory of gravity.
On June 30 2011 06:20 On_Slaught wrote: You are misplacing the burden. The burden is on the people who are actually doing the killing to show that their way is humane, not for everyone else to find a better solution.
I'm not taking a stance towards which is right since I don't know enough on the subject, but it is a very unfair stance to place the burden on anybody but the killers to show they are doing it in the most humane way.
And how do you suggest they prove it is humane? How did the lawmakers who banned it, prove that any other way is more humane?
On June 30 2011 06:15 Fattah wrote: Now if you can prove with empirical evidence and statistical data that stunning the animal before Halal slaughter is less painful then I don't see why Muslims wouldn't be more than willing or even satisfied to do it.
Do you really believe that?
What's up with the half quote? Read the whole thing.
You do realise it's possible for someone to eat meat but still not wanting to let animals suffer needlessly?
Actually, no. I didn't realize that, and I still can't.
Don't quote me on this but I think the reason why Halal slaughter is this way, is because it is (was) believed to be the most painless way to slaughter an animal. Now if you can prove with empirical evidence and statistical data that stunning the animal before Halal slaughter is less painful then I don't see why Muslims wouldn't be more than willing or even satisfied to do it. If there is another less painful way (again, using empirical evidence and statistical data) to slaughter animals that doesn't involve "slitting the throat in one slice" then I don't think I'm qualified enough to talk about it, and frankly neither are you. (assuming you are not a nuero scientist specialized in throat slitting.) In regards to Kosher, I am sorry I can't approach the subject with what limited knowledge I have about it
If it was possble to change a muslims (or any religious persons) mind with simple statistics and empirical evidence, the world would be very VERY different. How many muslims believe in the theory of evolution? And evolution has more evidence going for it than the theory of gravity.
Ok I am not a theologian, but the matter of evolution has something to do with theology rather than ritual.
Honestly I don't think its that big of a deal it's not like they are trying to cause huge amounts of pain to the animal it's a quick slit throat not some torturous way to die. Keep it in makes the Jews and Muslims happy while not causing an extreme amount of pain for the animals.
On June 30 2011 04:31 Hasudk wrote:It probably makes no sense to argue about this, since its only comprehendible if you actually want to understand it.
Isn't everything only understandable if you want to understand it?
The point is though that there are more than one way to get about knowledge. In fact you listed two different ways yourself: logic and empirical evidence. Both of which can be used to prove the existence of a God btw. There are numerous logical proofs of Gods existence, and f.ex. miracles are perfectly acceptable as empirical evidence of Gods existence as well.
Miracles are not evidence of anything. Miracles are simply unexplainable things. Something that is unexplainable does not imply a God, because that would be an explanation and therefore a miracle would not be unexplainable. Also, I've never heard of a proof of a God using logic. Please direct me to one so that I can find a debunk for it
Finally one could claim that there are even more ways to prove something then via logic or empirical evidence. One example of this could be feelings: you cannot prove via logic or empirical evidence that you love your girlfriend, but I'm sure that both you and her don't doubt it for a second.
If we are talking about knowledge, you can only prove something with the scientific method. Loving your girlfriend has nothing to do with knowledge and facts.
This all sounds like Im trying to prove the existence of a christian God. Im not though, Im just trying to show you cannot understand religion from an atheist point of view.
Of course you can understand religion from an atheist point of view. Religion is simply faith without evidence. Religion and it's teachings cannot be used as evidence for anything.
Saying that f.e.x christianity is about believing in the existence of a God is missing the point, its not the existence but the goodness of God that they believe in - they trust in God. Im sure that a lot of christians are in doubt (and probably also about the existence of their God), but there are also a lot of christians (and muslims, jews, hindus etc.) that know for certain that their God exists.
You cannot know for certain that their God exists. Even if 'God' talked to them. Even if a bush ignited in front of their eyes and it spoke to them. There are a million explanations for those things and a God is just one of them.
I'd prefer if we didn't continue this discussion as this thread is not about religion but about inhumana slaughter.
I think your post is an excellent and intelligent example of why you cant understand religion from an atheist point of view. Its all about the viewpoint. Consider that at some point in history everybody knew that the earth was the center of the universe - today we know something different, tomorrow something different again. Tomorrow our current knowledge might be false, but does that mean we don't know it to be certain today? Religion is about knowing that God exists – you might disagree, you might know that God does not exist, but that is actually irrelevant for wether or not religious people know that their God exists.
Also logic is relative, based on common assertions an other implicit values, therefor it makes no sense to argue with someone that their logic is not logical – its logical to them. Google "logical evidence for Gods existence", there are more than one, and as far as I know there are also counter-arguments for all of them.
As for the whole empirical evidence thing, I don't think you can find many examples of a piece empirical evidence that contains its own explanation. The apple certainly doesn't tell you that its falling because of gravity, thats just a theory that we use to explain the empirical observations. The same can be said to be true of miracles.
On June 30 2011 06:20 On_Slaught wrote: You are misplacing the burden. The burden is on the people who are actually doing the killing to show that their way is humane, not for everyone else to find a better solution.
I'm not taking a stance towards which is right since I don't know enough on the subject, but it is a very unfair stance to place the burden on anybody but the killers to show they are doing it in the most humane way.
And how do you suggest they prove it is humane? How did the lawmakers who banned it, prove that any other way is more humane?
On June 30 2011 06:15 Fattah wrote: Now if you can prove with empirical evidence and statistical data that stunning the animal before Halal slaughter is less painful then I don't see why Muslims wouldn't be more than willing or even satisfied to do it.
Do you really believe that?
What's up with the half quote? Read the whole thing.
You do realise it's possible for someone to eat meat but still not wanting to let animals suffer needlessly?
Actually, no. I didn't realize that, and I still can't.
Don't quote me on this but I think the reason why Halal slaughter is this way, is because it is (was) believed to be the most painless way to slaughter an animal. Now if you can prove with empirical evidence and statistical data that stunning the animal before Halal slaughter is less painful then I don't see why Muslims wouldn't be more than willing or even satisfied to do it. If there is another less painful way (again, using empirical evidence and statistical data) to slaughter animals that doesn't involve "slitting the throat in one slice" then I don't think I'm qualified enough to talk about it, and frankly neither are you. (assuming you are not a nuero scientist specialized in throat slitting.) In regards to Kosher, I am sorry I can't approach the subject with what limited knowledge I have about it
If it was possble to change a muslims (or any religious persons) mind with simple statistics and empirical evidence, the world would be very VERY different. How many muslims believe in the theory of evolution? And evolution has more evidence going for it than the theory of gravity.
Ok I am not a theologian, but the matter of evolution has something to do with theology rather than ritual.
Ehm, actually it does not. The fact of evolution is a scientific question, same goes for the matter of wether animals suffer when having their throat slit, in effect they can both be proven based on evidence. The opposition to the first, and the enforcement of the latter are both derieved from theology however, in effect they are based on faith (also tradition). So what exactly is the difference?
Even if you can not prove wether the animal suffers or not with our current knowledge and technology, it is still highly plausible that we one day will. And even more plausible, in my opinion, that the animal actually does suffer.
Let me know if this post was, in any way, unclear and i will rephrase my point. Slightly drunk at the moment.
I would say the emotional knee-jerk responses in this thread is the poison that keeps us from progressing as a race. Funny how a worldview centered around logic is completely mired in rage and disdain.
I suppose the natural inclination for most people would be animal welfare as to minimise the amount of suffering for the animal. However, i have always been under the impression that the Muslim/Jewish traditions were done so in a way that renders the least pain possible for the animal. I was always told that was the whole point of them.
This feels a little ill-thought to be honest. There aren't a ton of facts in the OP but it doesn't instil a great deal of confidence in the system.
On June 30 2011 07:00 bkrow wrote: I suppose the natural inclination for most people would be animal welfare as to minimise the amount of suffering for the animal. However, i have always been under the impression that the Muslim/Jewish traditions were done so in a way that renders the least pain possible for the animal. I was always told that was the whole point of them.
This feels a little ill-thought to be honest. There aren't a ton of facts in the OP but it doesn't instil a great deal of confidence in the system.
I have heard this as well. I don't think the animals welfare is any worse being killed kosher.
Go back to the fucking middle ages where causing suffering to life in the name of religion is considered rightful.
You read about this on a forum. Meh. Who cares. But if you would be there and if you would see it with your own eyes, if you would see this poor animal, it`s eyes, it`s fear and its pain when its being brutally murdered, if you could feel it, this folly, this hipocrisy, this senslessness, you would not be so indifferent.
Religions, sooner or later, need to be seen for what they truly are. It is forthright. Feel offended all you want. The truth remains the truth and your beliefs, religious affiliations will not change it.
I think that not only the law itself but also the OP's poll (in its wording at least) is incredibly stupid. I mean what does the Dutch government expect with this ? Does anyone really thinks ( apart maybe OP's author, i don't want to call him out) animal well being is what at stake here ? Am I the only one who thinks it's just about oppressing (ok that might be a lil' strong, let's just say "putting the blame on") a specific set of persons, just for political benefit ? Are there really people around here falling in that trap ? And as far as the Poll wording goes what about : What is worth more? * Insulting millions of people by prentending to care about Animals well being * Not putting oil on the already pretty complicated Religious tension bondfire
I'm so appalled by this that I actually went ahead and wrote that post instead of watching Huk stream. That's how upset I am, exactly.
Don't Dutch lawmakers have nothing better to do with their time, you know like finding actual solution so that people who are actually suffering in their country get better ?
-Kerm
ps : And don't even try to throw Foie Gras, Corrida or Hijab ban at my face
pps : Reading WallieP's OP a second time, I realize that he does not realy mean to take side, just trying to expose the law as it is. I still find his poll is worded in a biased fashion though.
On June 30 2011 07:05 Kerm wrote: I think that not only the law itself but also the OP's poll (in its wording at least) is incredibly stupid. I mean what does the Dutch government expect with this ? Does anyone really thinks ( apart maybe OP's author, i don't want to call him out) animal well being is what at stake here ? Am I the only one who thinks it's just about oppressing (ok that might be a lil' strong, let's just say "putting the blame on") a specific set of persons, just for political benefit ? Are there really people around here falling in that trap ? And as far as the Poll wording goes what about : What is worth more? * Insulting millions of people by prentending to care about Animals well being * Not putting oil on the already pretty complicated Religious tension bondfire
I'm so appalled by this that I actually went ahead and wrote that post instead of watching Huk stream. That's how upset I am, exactly.
Don't Dutch lawmakers have nothing better to do with their time, you know like finding actual solution so that people who are actually suffering in their country get better ?
-Kerm
ps : And don't even try to throw Foie Gars, Corrida or Hijab ban at my face
pps : Reading WallieP's OP a second time, I realize that he does not realy mean to take side, just trying to expose the law as it is. I still find his poll is worded in a biased fashion though.
You have no proof that it is just for political benefit. It might very well be true though, at least to some degree.
The honesty of those responsible for choices, priority of actions and correct investment of time and energy certainly is an issue, and not just in Netherlands, but in every country.
Nonetheless, religious rituals involving killing animals that have to be awake for the sake of a tradition of the ritual is absolutely sick. We live in the fucking XXI century.
On June 30 2011 04:31 Hasudk wrote:It probably makes no sense to argue about this, since its only comprehendible if you actually want to understand it.
Isn't everything only understandable if you want to understand it?
The point is though that there are more than one way to get about knowledge. In fact you listed two different ways yourself: logic and empirical evidence. Both of which can be used to prove the existence of a God btw. There are numerous logical proofs of Gods existence, and f.ex. miracles are perfectly acceptable as empirical evidence of Gods existence as well.
Miracles are not evidence of anything. Miracles are simply unexplainable things. Something that is unexplainable does not imply a God, because that would be an explanation and therefore a miracle would not be unexplainable. Also, I've never heard of a proof of a God using logic. Please direct me to one so that I can find a debunk for it
Finally one could claim that there are even more ways to prove something then via logic or empirical evidence. One example of this could be feelings: you cannot prove via logic or empirical evidence that you love your girlfriend, but I'm sure that both you and her don't doubt it for a second.
If we are talking about knowledge, you can only prove something with the scientific method. Loving your girlfriend has nothing to do with knowledge and facts.
This all sounds like Im trying to prove the existence of a christian God. Im not though, Im just trying to show you cannot understand religion from an atheist point of view.
Of course you can understand religion from an atheist point of view. Religion is simply faith without evidence. Religion and it's teachings cannot be used as evidence for anything.
Saying that f.e.x christianity is about believing in the existence of a God is missing the point, its not the existence but the goodness of God that they believe in - they trust in God. Im sure that a lot of christians are in doubt (and probably also about the existence of their God), but there are also a lot of christians (and muslims, jews, hindus etc.) that know for certain that their God exists.
You cannot know for certain that their God exists. Even if 'God' talked to them. Even if a bush ignited in front of their eyes and it spoke to them. There are a million explanations for those things and a God is just one of them.
I hope that makes sense =)
I'm sorry, but it didn't make sense at all
I'd prefer if we didn't continue this discussion as this thread is not about religion but about inhumana slaughter.
I think your post is an excellent and intelligent example of why you cant understand religion from an atheist point of view. Its all about the viewpoint. Consider that at some point in history everybody knew that the earth was the center of the universe - today we know something different, tomorrow something different again. Tomorrow our current knowledge might be false, but does that mean we don't know it to be certain today? Religion is about knowing that God exists – you might disagree, you might know that God does not exist, but that is actually irrelevant for wether or not religious people know that their God exists.
Also logic is relative, based on common assertions an other implicit values, therefor it makes no sense to argue with someone that their logic is not logical – its logical to them. Google "logical evidence for Gods existence", there are more than one, and as far as I know there are also counter-arguments for all of them.
As for the whole empirical evidence thing, I don't think you can find many examples of a piece empirical evidence that contains its own explanation. The apple certainly doesn't tell you that its falling because of gravity, thats just a theory that we use to explain the empirical observations. The same can be said to be true of miracles.
What are you even arguing? That because a religious person claims to know that God exists that means atheists can't understand it? I understand religion full well, I just think it's blatantly false. If it turns out to be wrong that does indeed mean we didn't know for certain because it literally means known for sure, beyond a doubt. People weren't certain about the earth being flat, they just thought it was.
What kind of proof are you talking about, a tape or something ? A stolen mail ? Come on, given the political context of the Netherlands (the little than I know about at least), given the political context of Europe, that's pretty obvious. We have been living in "the fucking XXI century for more than ten years now", why does the law only gets talked about now do you think ?
On June 30 2011 07:04 UFO wrote: Go back to the fucking middle ages where causing suffering to life in the name of religion is considered rightful.
You read about this on a forum. Meh. Who cares. But if you would be there and if you would see it with your own eyes, if you would see this poor animal, it`s eyes, it`s fear and its pain when its being brutally murdered, if you could feel it, this folly, this hipocrisy, this senslessness, you would not be so indifferent.
Religions, sooner or later, need to be seen for what they truly are. It is forthright. Feel offended all you want. The truth remains the truth and your beliefs, religious affiliations will not change it.
BRUTALLY MURDERED ! TERRIBLE TERRIBLE DAMAGE Killing an animal for food is murder?
On June 30 2011 07:05 Kerm wrote: I think that not only the law itself but also the OP's poll (in its wording at least) is incredibly stupid. I mean what does the Dutch government expect with this ? Does anyone really thinks ( apart maybe OP's author, i don't want to call him out) animal well being is what at stake here ? Am I the only one who thinks it's just about oppressing (ok that might be a lil' strong, let's just say "putting the blame on") a specific set of persons, just for political benefit ? Are there really people around here falling in that trap ? And as far as the Poll wording goes what about : What is worth more? * Insulting millions of people by prentending to care about Animals well being * Not putting oil on the already pretty complicated Religious tension bondfire
I'm so appalled by this that I actually went ahead and wrote that post instead of watching Huk stream. That's how upset I am, exactly.
Don't Dutch lawmakers have nothing better to do with their time, you know like finding actual solution so that people who are actually suffering in their country get better ?
-Kerm
ps : And don't even try to throw Foie Gars, Corrida or Hijab ban at my face
pps : Reading WallieP's OP a second time, I realize that he does not realy mean to take side, just trying to expose the law as it is. I still find his poll is worded in a biased fashion though.
You have no proof that it is just for political benefit. It might very well be true though, at least to some degree.
The honesty of those responsible for choices, priority of actions and correct investment of time and energy certainly is an issue, and not just in Netherlands, but in every country.
Nonetheless, religious rituals involving killing animals that have to be awake for the sake of a tradition of the ritual is absolutely sick. We live in the fucking XXI century.
So when's the next law banning industrial farmed animals then?
From what I have seen, Halal/Kosher does not look anywhere as bad as those factory farms.
On June 30 2011 07:05 Kerm wrote: I think that not only the law itself but also the OP's poll (in its wording at least) is incredibly stupid. I mean what does the Dutch government expect with this ? Does anyone really thinks ( apart maybe OP's author, i don't want to call him out) animal well being is what at stake here ? Am I the only one who thinks it's just about oppressing (ok that might be a lil' strong, let's just say "putting the blame on") a specific set of persons, just for political benefit ? Are there really people around here falling in that trap ? And as far as the Poll wording goes what about : What is worth more? * Insulting millions of people by prentending to care about Animals well being * Not putting oil on the already pretty complicated Religious tension bondfire
I'm so appalled by this that I actually went ahead and wrote that post instead of watching Huk stream. That's how upset I am, exactly.
Don't Dutch lawmakers have nothing better to do with their time, you know like finding actual solution so that people who are actually suffering in their country get better ?
-Kerm
ps : And don't even try to throw Foie Gars, Corrida or Hijab ban at my face
pps : Reading WallieP's OP a second time, I realize that he does not realy mean to take side, just trying to expose the law as it is. I still find his poll is worded in a biased fashion though.
You have no proof that it is just for political benefit. It might very well be true though, at least to some degree.
The honesty of those responsible for choices, priority of actions and correct investment of time and energy certainly is an issue, and not just in Netherlands, but in every country.
Nonetheless, religious rituals involving killing animals that have to be awake for the sake of a tradition of the ritual is absolutely sick. We live in the fucking XXI century.
Like why do people still not read the thread? What's wrong with your eyes? There was even a guy linking a test done by scientists that shows that slitting the throat of the animal is less painful than stunning it. BOOM. And who cares anyway. It dies fairly quickly however you do it, and it's obviously more humane or whatever to do it the religious way. Just because it's religious doesn't mean it's bad... Just that it's probably bad.
I dunno where all these PETA guys comes from. First the policeman killing a dog thread, where poeple says that he should be put down for murder and shit, and now this.
On June 30 2011 07:05 Kerm wrote: I think that not only the law itself but also the OP's poll (in its wording at least) is incredibly stupid. I mean what does the Dutch government expect with this ? Does anyone really thinks ( apart maybe OP's author, i don't want to call him out) animal well being is what at stake here ? Am I the only one who thinks it's just about oppressing (ok that might be a lil' strong, let's just say "putting the blame on") a specific set of persons, just for political benefit ? Are there really people around here falling in that trap ? And as far as the Poll wording goes what about : What is worth more? * Insulting millions of people by prentending to care about Animals well being * Not putting oil on the already pretty complicated Religious tension bondfire
I'm so appalled by this that I actually went ahead and wrote that post instead of watching Huk stream. That's how upset I am, exactly.
Don't Dutch lawmakers have nothing better to do with their time, you know like finding actual solution so that people who are actually suffering in their country get better ?
-Kerm
ps : And don't even try to throw Foie Gars, Corrida or Hijab ban at my face
pps : Reading WallieP's OP a second time, I realize that he does not realy mean to take side, just trying to expose the law as it is. I still find his poll is worded in a biased fashion though.
You have no proof that it is just for political benefit. It might very well be true though, at least to some degree.
The honesty of those responsible for choices, priority of actions and correct investment of time and energy certainly is an issue, and not just in Netherlands, but in every country.
Nonetheless, religious rituals involving killing animals that have to be awake for the sake of a tradition of the ritual is absolutely sick. We live in the fucking XXI century.
Like why do people still not read the thread? What's wrong with your eyes? There was even a guy linking a test done by scientists that shows that slitting the throat of the animal is less painful than stunning it. BOOM. And who cares anyway. It dies fairly quickly however you do it, and it's obviously more humane or whatever to do it the religious way. Just because it's religious doesn't mean it's bad... Just that it's probably bad.
I dunno where all these PETA guys comes from. First the policeman killing a dog thread, where poeple says that he should be put down for murder and shit, and now this.
It's really those people that put humanity's future in doubt. How could you ever put another human down just because he killed an animal, intentional or unintentional. Sure, it may not be right. However, you can't apply an eye for and eye. He's another of humanity. you can't put another human down for that. It maybe a life, but it was an animal.
How are they stunning it/knocking it out? If they're bashing them over the head I'm not sure how that's better than slitting the throat. If they're drugging them I'd rather not get extra drugs/chemicals in the food.
I like animals but there are more important things to consider than how they are killed for our consumption. Like the hormones they are given, feeding, and care of them.
On June 30 2011 04:31 Hasudk wrote:It probably makes no sense to argue about this, since its only comprehendible if you actually want to understand it.
Isn't everything only understandable if you want to understand it?
The point is though that there are more than one way to get about knowledge. In fact you listed two different ways yourself: logic and empirical evidence. Both of which can be used to prove the existence of a God btw. There are numerous logical proofs of Gods existence, and f.ex. miracles are perfectly acceptable as empirical evidence of Gods existence as well.
Miracles are not evidence of anything. Miracles are simply unexplainable things. Something that is unexplainable does not imply a God, because that would be an explanation and therefore a miracle would not be unexplainable. Also, I've never heard of a proof of a God using logic. Please direct me to one so that I can find a debunk for it
Finally one could claim that there are even more ways to prove something then via logic or empirical evidence. One example of this could be feelings: you cannot prove via logic or empirical evidence that you love your girlfriend, but I'm sure that both you and her don't doubt it for a second.
If we are talking about knowledge, you can only prove something with the scientific method. Loving your girlfriend has nothing to do with knowledge and facts.
This all sounds like Im trying to prove the existence of a christian God. Im not though, Im just trying to show you cannot understand religion from an atheist point of view.
Of course you can understand religion from an atheist point of view. Religion is simply faith without evidence. Religion and it's teachings cannot be used as evidence for anything.
Saying that f.e.x christianity is about believing in the existence of a God is missing the point, its not the existence but the goodness of God that they believe in - they trust in God. Im sure that a lot of christians are in doubt (and probably also about the existence of their God), but there are also a lot of christians (and muslims, jews, hindus etc.) that know for certain that their God exists.
You cannot know for certain that their God exists. Even if 'God' talked to them. Even if a bush ignited in front of their eyes and it spoke to them. There are a million explanations for those things and a God is just one of them.
I hope that makes sense =)
I'm sorry, but it didn't make sense at all
I'd prefer if we didn't continue this discussion as this thread is not about religion but about inhumana slaughter.
I think your post is an excellent and intelligent example of why you cant understand religion from an atheist point of view. Its all about the viewpoint. Consider that at some point in history everybody knew that the earth was the center of the universe - today we know something different, tomorrow something different again. Tomorrow our current knowledge might be false, but does that mean we don't know it to be certain today? Religion is about knowing that God exists – you might disagree, you might know that God does not exist, but that is actually irrelevant for wether or not religious people know that their God exists.
You are going way too deep into philosophy without actually knowing what you're talking about. They did not know it was the center of the universe, they just thought it was so. Plato's classic definition of knowledge is "justified true belief", earth being the center of the universe fails on both being justified and true. If you have a better definition of knowledge I would like to hear it, but I honestly doubt it.
On June 30 2011 06:54 Hasudk wrote:Also logic is relative, based on common assertions an other implicit values, therefor it makes no sense to argue with someone that their logic is not logical – its logical to them. Google "logical evidence for Gods existence", there are more than one, and as far as I know there are also counter-arguments for all of them.
Logic is by definition not relative. 1+1=2. That is not debatable, relative or a matter of opinion.
On June 30 2011 06:54 Hasudk wrote:As for the whole empirical evidence thing, I don't think you can find many examples of a piece empirical evidence that contains its own explanation. The apple certainly doesn't tell you that its falling because of gravity, thats just a theory that we use to explain the empirical observations. The same can be said to be true of miracles.
It is a theory, and a well justified on at that. Apple falling to the ground is indicative of a force pulling it there. An unexplainable occurrence is not any more indicative of a god than anything else, usually less.
Again, I have to repeat. Non-stunned slaughtering was already banned. Dutch people care about animal right enough to do this. Yes, maybe they are hypocrites in doing so. But still they decided it was worth it to stun all animals before slaughtering. This is not a ban of religious slaughter according to the letter of the law. This is a ban of non stunned slaughter. Stunning slaughtering is a perfectly fine alternative that doesn't cost more and the only reason not to do it is that halal and kosher slaughtering disallow it. Meat won't be more expensive if you stun the animal, which is why we have factory farming.
This new law is made by the animal rights party called 'party for the animals'. They have two seats in the 150 seat parlaiment. They are very effective at what they do and time and time again succeed in putting animal rights on the agenda. They put in motion all other parties, who feel forces to be more pro animal rights to try to take the seats away from this one issue party.
On June 30 2011 07:38 Adila wrote: So when's the next law banning industrial farmed animals then?
From what I have seen, Halal/Kosher does not look anywhere as bad as those factory farms.
Yes! This party called 'Party for the animals' end every speech in partaiment with 'We hope this will help to end factory farming'. They do this every time. It's become a running gag, of a sort. The main aim of this party is to end factory farming. And they are perfectly right about that.
Yes, they are able to ban ritual slaughtering because of Islamophobia and populism on the part of the very right wing parties VVD and PVV. But who can blame the party for the animals for being able to do this? They only care about animal rights and are far from anti islam or anti religion.
And the poll is perfectly fine because contrary to the lies of some religious people, science claims there is no way that halal and kosher slaughtering can ever be less painful than stunning. This new law only bans halal and kosher slaughtering if and because they are less animal friendly. Religion never enters the debate. The issue is the pain the animal feels as measured by electrodes.
Personally, as a vegetarian, I don't think it it that important how the animal dies in the last minutes of it's life. But this is the same as all other arguments people have desperately tried to make. Examples are, humans are on the top of the food chain, lions/wolves tear apart their prey in the wild while it dies slowly, the nature of reality is a matter of opinion and not something that can be objectively determined by science, etc. Really, this reminds me of the vegetarian vs meat eaters debate where the meat eaters bring out worse arguments than I have seen most creationists do. But in this case the anti animal rights people and the strongly religious people are one and the same.
On June 30 2011 07:59 Playguuu wrote: How are they stunning it/knocking it out? If they're bashing them over the head I'm not sure how that's better than slitting the throat. If they're drugging them I'd rather not get extra drugs/chemicals in the food.
I like animals but there are more important things to consider than how they are killed for our consumption. Like the hormones they are given, feeding, and care of them.
What would you prefer; Being hit hard over the head with a baseball bat, knocking you out practically instantly. Or being hanged by your feet, then having your throat cut and then slowly bleeding to death.
On June 30 2011 06:54 Hasudk wrote:
Consider that at some point in history everybody knew that the earth was the center of the universe - today we know something different, tomorrow something different again.
Are you implying that knowledge is objective and relative? In case you are there is no way of arguing with you, nor is there any way for you to argue with other people. Post-modern relativism is pretty pathetic honestly.
My god what a load of rubbish. I'm sorry for putting it like that, but it really is.
On June 30 2011 06:54 Hasudk wrote: I think your post is an excellent and intelligent example of why you cant understand religion from an atheist point of view. Its all about the viewpoint. Consider that at some point in history everybody knew that the earth was the center of the universe - today we know something different, tomorrow something different again. Tomorrow our current knowledge might be false, but does that mean we don't know it to be certain today?
They didn't 'knew' the earth was the center of the universe. They believed, without evidence, that the earth was the center of the universe. Just like some people believe in a god, they do not know there is a god for it is unknowable by definition.
Religion is about knowing that God exists – you might disagree, you might know that God does not exist, but that is actually irrelevant for wether or not religious people know that their God exists.
You cannot know God exists. It's logically impossible to know.
Also logic is relative, based on common assertions an other implicit values, therefor it makes no sense to argue with someone that their logic is not logical – its logical to them. Google "logical evidence for Gods existence", there are more than one, and as far as I know there are also counter-arguments for all of them.
Logic everything but relative. Logic is an universal language. If P then Q, P thus Q is as true as it is for us humans as for any other lifeform on any other planet in the universe. And this is just weird, you just busted your own argument by saying there are counterarguments for each logical 'proof'?
As for the whole empirical evidence thing, I don't think you can find many examples of a piece empirical evidence that contains its own explanation. The apple certainly doesn't tell you that its falling because of gravity, thats just a theory that we use to explain the empirical observations. The same can be said to be true of miracles.
You seem confused about facts and scientific theories. Gravity is a fact. The theory of gravity tries to explain to the best of our knowledge how gravity, the fact, works. Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution tries to explain to the best of our knowledge how evolution, the fact, works. We observe objects falling down. We observe planets circling around heavier objects. We observe groups of galaxies in specific motions relative to each other. This suggests there is some sort of force that does this. Gravity. The theory of gravity tries to explain how this force works, by matching formulas and laws with the empirical evidence. If something doesn't match the evidence, it is discarded.
No matter how hard you 'know' god exists doesn't matter. This should be obvious alone from the fact that many different people around the world 'know' for a fact that their belief is 100% correct. The truth is that none of their beliefs are correct. If you define a god as a supernatural being, it can, by definition, not be provable by the scientific method.
What? Where did tasteless go? He was still godly last time i see him...
For the rest, god exists when you want/need him. you dont have to look to far. If you are sad and going thru hard phases of your life, you can ask him help, maybe itll help, maybe it wont. Not something you can touch with you own hands, but if you lose your hands, maybe you try harder...
Religion is not about knowing God exists, or affirming that God exists. When religion becomes something that spews invalid "truisms", faith has withered and died. Piety is never the same as faith, no matter how "pure" the piety is.
For fuck's sake, this thread doesn't even have any real relevance to a religious or theological discourse. If you can't actually deal with what this whole argument is about, then don't post. Don't bring in your half-baked reason with your philosophical and theological ignorance. It's a grotesque red herring that spits on everything.
Don't understand how animal welfare and that method is mutually exclusive. you think someone being beheaded swiftly is torture? This issue is really funny from my perspective, because jews and muslims apply the same argument for animal welfare for killing the fast rather than being mass electrocuted or suffocated. Both sides should stop talking about stuff they don't know.
On June 30 2011 07:05 Kerm wrote: I think that not only the law itself but also the OP's poll (in its wording at least) is incredibly stupid. I mean what does the Dutch government expect with this ? Does anyone really thinks ( apart maybe OP's author, i don't want to call him out) animal well being is what at stake here ? Am I the only one who thinks it's just about oppressing (ok that might be a lil' strong, let's just say "putting the blame on") a specific set of persons, just for political benefit ? Are there really people around here falling in that trap ? And as far as the Poll wording goes what about : What is worth more? * Insulting millions of people by prentending to care about Animals well being * Not putting oil on the already pretty complicated Religious tension bondfire
I'm so appalled by this that I actually went ahead and wrote that post instead of watching Huk stream. That's how upset I am, exactly.
Don't Dutch lawmakers have nothing better to do with their time, you know like finding actual solution so that people who are actually suffering in their country get better ?
-Kerm
ps : And don't even try to throw Foie Gars, Corrida or Hijab ban at my face
pps : Reading WallieP's OP a second time, I realize that he does not realy mean to take side, just trying to expose the law as it is. I still find his poll is worded in a biased fashion though.
You have no proof that it is just for political benefit. It might very well be true though, at least to some degree.
The honesty of those responsible for choices, priority of actions and correct investment of time and energy certainly is an issue, and not just in Netherlands, but in every country.
Nonetheless, religious rituals involving killing animals that have to be awake for the sake of a tradition of the ritual is absolutely sick. We live in the fucking XXI century.
Like why do people still not read the thread? What's wrong with your eyes? There was even a guy linking a test done by scientists that shows that slitting the throat of the animal is less painful than stunning it. BOOM. And who cares anyway. It dies fairly quickly however you do it, and it's obviously more humane or whatever to do it the religious way. Just because it's religious doesn't mean it's bad... Just that it's probably bad.
I dunno where all these PETA guys comes from. First the policeman killing a dog thread, where poeple says that he should be put down for murder and shit, and now this.
And you claim this link is all one needs to believe that it really is so. BOOM. Here, you have a link. Scientists proved. BOOM. Who cares about animal being killed in the name of a religious ritual. BOOM. Imagine your throat was about to be sliced. 5 minutes or so and you are gone. Why worry ? Guess what, the animal feels as well but BOOM why would you care. BOOM.
Why are there so many votes for animal welfare when shit 10x as worst is going on in the factories everyday and going straight to your dish for dinner? Hypocritical much?
Unless ofc the majority of those voters were vegetarians but I somehow doubt that.
On June 30 2011 07:05 Kerm wrote: I think that not only the law itself but also the OP's poll (in its wording at least) is incredibly stupid. I mean what does the Dutch government expect with this ? Does anyone really thinks ( apart maybe OP's author, i don't want to call him out) animal well being is what at stake here ? Am I the only one who thinks it's just about oppressing (ok that might be a lil' strong, let's just say "putting the blame on") a specific set of persons, just for political benefit ? Are there really people around here falling in that trap ? And as far as the Poll wording goes what about : What is worth more? * Insulting millions of people by prentending to care about Animals well being * Not putting oil on the already pretty complicated Religious tension bondfire
I'm so appalled by this that I actually went ahead and wrote that post instead of watching Huk stream. That's how upset I am, exactly.
Don't Dutch lawmakers have nothing better to do with their time, you know like finding actual solution so that people who are actually suffering in their country get better ?
-Kerm
ps : And don't even try to throw Foie Gars, Corrida or Hijab ban at my face
pps : Reading WallieP's OP a second time, I realize that he does not realy mean to take side, just trying to expose the law as it is. I still find his poll is worded in a biased fashion though.
You have no proof that it is just for political benefit. It might very well be true though, at least to some degree.
The honesty of those responsible for choices, priority of actions and correct investment of time and energy certainly is an issue, and not just in Netherlands, but in every country.
Nonetheless, religious rituals involving killing animals that have to be awake for the sake of a tradition of the ritual is absolutely sick. We live in the fucking XXI century.
Like why do people still not read the thread? What's wrong with your eyes? There was even a guy linking a test done by scientists that shows that slitting the throat of the animal is less painful than stunning it. BOOM. And who cares anyway. It dies fairly quickly however you do it, and it's obviously more humane or whatever to do it the religious way. Just because it's religious doesn't mean it's bad... Just that it's probably bad.
I dunno where all these PETA guys comes from. First the policeman killing a dog thread, where poeple says that he should be put down for murder and shit, and now this.
And you claim this link is all one needs to believe that it really is so. BOOM. Here, you have a link. Scientists proved. BOOM. Who cares about animal being killed in the name of a religious ritual. BOOM. Imagine your throat was about to be sliced. 5 minutes or so and you are gone. Why worry ? Guess what, the animal feels as well but BOOM why would you care. BOOM.
You're using your own personal conjecture to try refute a documented scientific test. For those have done research, it would seem that the throat cutting is done because it is the least painful and quickest way to slaughter the animal. That is the entire point of it.
On June 30 2011 07:05 Kerm wrote: I think that not only the law itself but also the OP's poll (in its wording at least) is incredibly stupid. I mean what does the Dutch government expect with this ? Does anyone really thinks ( apart maybe OP's author, i don't want to call him out) animal well being is what at stake here ? Am I the only one who thinks it's just about oppressing (ok that might be a lil' strong, let's just say "putting the blame on") a specific set of persons, just for political benefit ? Are there really people around here falling in that trap ? And as far as the Poll wording goes what about : What is worth more? * Insulting millions of people by prentending to care about Animals well being * Not putting oil on the already pretty complicated Religious tension bondfire
I'm so appalled by this that I actually went ahead and wrote that post instead of watching Huk stream. That's how upset I am, exactly.
Don't Dutch lawmakers have nothing better to do with their time, you know like finding actual solution so that people who are actually suffering in their country get better ?
-Kerm
ps : And don't even try to throw Foie Gars, Corrida or Hijab ban at my face
pps : Reading WallieP's OP a second time, I realize that he does not realy mean to take side, just trying to expose the law as it is. I still find his poll is worded in a biased fashion though.
You have no proof that it is just for political benefit. It might very well be true though, at least to some degree.
The honesty of those responsible for choices, priority of actions and correct investment of time and energy certainly is an issue, and not just in Netherlands, but in every country.
Nonetheless, religious rituals involving killing animals that have to be awake for the sake of a tradition of the ritual is absolutely sick. We live in the fucking XXI century.
Like why do people still not read the thread? What's wrong with your eyes? There was even a guy linking a test done by scientists that shows that slitting the throat of the animal is less painful than stunning it. BOOM. And who cares anyway. It dies fairly quickly however you do it, and it's obviously more humane or whatever to do it the religious way. Just because it's religious doesn't mean it's bad... Just that it's probably bad.
I dunno where all these PETA guys comes from. First the policeman killing a dog thread, where poeple says that he should be put down for murder and shit, and now this.
And you claim this link is all one needs to believe that it really is so. BOOM. Here, you have a link. Scientists proved. BOOM. Who cares about animal being killed in the name of a religious ritual. BOOM. Imagine your throat was about to be sliced. 5 minutes or so and you are gone. Why worry ? Guess what, the animal feels as well but BOOM why would you care. BOOM.
Yes I do. If it's tested, it's proven until proven false. I don't give a fuck about animals dying because of a "religious ritual". They'd die anyway. This is for the food industry. If I were you I'd worry more about what conditions they're in when they're alive. Animals generally don't know what a knife is, and having your throat sliced doesn't actually hurt if you do it right. It's like a paper cut. Even if it hurt life fuck it wouldn't matter cause they'd be dead in a matter of seconds. I want my kebab.
On June 30 2011 16:23 AngryFarmer wrote: None. I personally don't believe animals can feel and if they do, it doesn't matter. As long as it's the cheaper method, I'd prefer it.
Animals can't feel? WTF
I've seen the so called cosher killing of sheep and I say THEY FEEL IT and it's terrible. They should go for the boltshot that breaks their skull. That's cheap and after that, they feel nothing.
On June 30 2011 16:23 AngryFarmer wrote: None. I personally don't believe animals can feel and if they do, it doesn't matter. As long as it's the cheaper method, I'd prefer it.
On June 30 2011 16:23 AngryFarmer wrote: None. I personally don't believe animals can feel and if they do, it doesn't matter. As long as it's the cheaper method, I'd prefer it.
You're an animal too, dingus.
But he's a human, and his purpose of existence isn't to be food either
On June 30 2011 16:23 AngryFarmer wrote: None. I personally don't believe animals can feel and if they do, it doesn't matter. As long as it's the cheaper method, I'd prefer it.
You're an animal too, dingus.
But he's a human, and his purpose of existence isn't to be food either
On June 30 2011 16:23 AngryFarmer wrote: None. I personally don't believe animals can feel and if they do, it doesn't matter. As long as it's the cheaper method, I'd prefer it.
And I personally don't believe the Earth is round.
Seriously wtf? Of course animals can feel, even plants can feel to some extent.
I'm in favour of animal welfare, but going against religious beliefs would cause more problems than its worth so I disagree with the proposed changes.
Also its been said, but the poll is really biased.
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.
halal/kosher butcherin of animals can be very painless for animals when it is done correctly. When i accindently cut myself with a really sharp knife i dont feel anything.
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.
I doubt most people here concerned about animal welfare approves very much of the industrial slaughter in general, however it is an unfortunate consequence of capitalism but that is an unrelated point to this discussion. My point is that you can not justify "animal cruelty", even in the form of religious tradition, by saying "other people treat animals badly, therefore we can as well".
On July 01 2011 00:31 Armut wrote: This is so obviously done with the intention to alienate the Muslim and Jewish societies.
Are you fucking serious?! I might as well say that the religious slaughter of animals is obviously an attempt to alienate secularists, atheists and animal activists. Religious tradition? Give me a break!
On July 01 2011 00:33 Lanfire wrote: halal/kosher butcherin of animals can be very painless for animals when it is done correctly. When i accindently cut myself with a really sharp knife i dont feel anything.
Nice argument. Have you ever been close to bleeding to death? Can't say that i personally have either, but i have once bled so much i atleast lost conciousness. And i can tell you from personal experience that it was of the most obnoxious things i have ever experienced. The nausea is incredible, your vision starts to blur and you get tunnelvision. Then you throw up, feel even more terrible, and then you pass out. Atleast that is my experience on the matter. Can't really compare bleeding to death to cutting a finger on a sharp knife. Thats like saying that being strangled is not painful, because holding your hands around your neck is not.
On June 30 2011 07:05 Kerm wrote: I think that not only the law itself but also the OP's poll (in its wording at least) is incredibly stupid. I mean what does the Dutch government expect with this ? Does anyone really thinks ( apart maybe OP's author, i don't want to call him out) animal well being is what at stake here ? Am I the only one who thinks it's just about oppressing (ok that might be a lil' strong, let's just say "putting the blame on") a specific set of persons, just for political benefit ? Are there really people around here falling in that trap ? And as far as the Poll wording goes what about : What is worth more? * Insulting millions of people by prentending to care about Animals well being * Not putting oil on the already pretty complicated Religious tension bondfire
I'm so appalled by this that I actually went ahead and wrote that post instead of watching Huk stream. That's how upset I am, exactly.
Don't Dutch lawmakers have nothing better to do with their time, you know like finding actual solution so that people who are actually suffering in their country get better ?
-Kerm
ps : And don't even try to throw Foie Gars, Corrida or Hijab ban at my face
pps : Reading WallieP's OP a second time, I realize that he does not realy mean to take side, just trying to expose the law as it is. I still find his poll is worded in a biased fashion though.
You have no proof that it is just for political benefit. It might very well be true though, at least to some degree.
The honesty of those responsible for choices, priority of actions and correct investment of time and energy certainly is an issue, and not just in Netherlands, but in every country.
Nonetheless, religious rituals involving killing animals that have to be awake for the sake of a tradition of the ritual is absolutely sick. We live in the fucking XXI century.
Like why do people still not read the thread? What's wrong with your eyes? There was even a guy linking a test done by scientists that shows that slitting the throat of the animal is less painful than stunning it. BOOM. And who cares anyway. It dies fairly quickly however you do it, and it's obviously more humane or whatever to do it the religious way. Just because it's religious doesn't mean it's bad... Just that it's probably bad.
I dunno where all these PETA guys comes from. First the policeman killing a dog thread, where poeple says that he should be put down for murder and shit, and now this.
And you claim this link is all one needs to believe that it really is so. BOOM. Here, you have a link. Scientists proved. BOOM. Who cares about animal being killed in the name of a religious ritual. BOOM. Imagine your throat was about to be sliced. 5 minutes or so and you are gone. Why worry ? Guess what, the animal feels as well but BOOM why would you care. BOOM.
You're using your own personal conjecture to try refute a documented scientific test. For those have done research, it would seem that the throat cutting is done because it is the least painful and quickest way to slaughter the animal. That is the entire point of it.
Altho this is possible, I think the reason people are sceptical of this (the fact that halal/kosher slaughter is less painfull then slaughter with stun/sedation) is because in the end the major foodindustry chooses to stun/anestesise the animals. This costs money and time (and time is money yay!). This wouldnt be something they put in themselves unless there was either some benefit to it or a regulation forcing them to do it. Now, i'm assuming that apart from the benefit that the animals suffer less there aren't a great many reasons why a company would go trough a relatively expensive and time consuming procedure to chop off the animals head afterwards.
Assuming then, that it's regulated , I would also assume that this regulation is there for the benefit of the animals welfare/condition. I'm not trying to say one thing or the other, but this is where my assumptions leave me. If i'm wrong in any of my assumptions please let me know to shed some more light on this.
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.
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 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 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 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 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.
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.
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 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?
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 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.
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.
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 05:24 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.
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.
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.
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.
To be honest I do not really understand how a comparison between the nazi concentration camps and the butchering of animalis is a valid one, and I have yet to see a compelling argument to make the comparisen slightly more reasonable.
To begin with, I think it's fair to say that all morality does (or at least should) be focused on the wellbeing of conscious beings, as well as their potential for distress and unhappiness. Needless to say, if animals were like robots and unable to feel pain or distress one would certainly not object to mistreating them or slaughtering them in horrific ways. However, it is probable beyond reasonal doubt that mammalian animals DO feel pain and can indeed feel somewhat sad. I can't possibly think of any non-sociopathic pet owner objecting to such an obvious statement.
The reasonable question followed by the ethical premise of minimizing suffering is "How do we do it?" We can certainly distinguish between a great deal of pain and lesser pain, so a less painful way to slaughter an animal is preferrable. This is still true and reasonable even if you are not an ethical vegetarian. The argument would be something like: "I like meat and therefore support the industry, but I don't want the animals to suffer more than is absolutely necessary."
We do not have to be absolutists to avoid being hypocrites, but my concern with the meat industry is that so many of the animals actually suffer a great deal before dying. Were this not the case, imagine animals living in harmony to the very day they were slaughtered in the most humane way possible- could we object to this if we only consider the wellbeing of animals. I don't think so.
This OP doesn't lend itself at all to a good discussion.
The poll is really beyond misdirected. It asks what is more important "Animal wellfare" or "Jewish and Muslim traditions". First of all "Animal Wellfare" as a description for "subjectively more humane killing of a being that you want to devour" is kind of stretching semantics. Also the second option should read "religious traditions" since it really shouldn't make a difference which religions we are talking about here. There is just so much bias in the question.
Edit: gosuMalicE sums up what I would expect a better OP to look like.
On July 01 2011 06:35 gosuMalicE wrote:
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.
I assume you mean the novel by Nietzsche from where i got my signature quote? I actually have not read it yet, but it is on my "to-read" list. Whats your point?
You should change the 2nd answer to be "religious traditions" to get people's REAL opinions and how many christians only voted A because they aren't interested in jews or muslims.
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?
Its not about karma points. Its about pain. Yes, I still would prefer the less painfull ending, thank you. And I dont think treating animals like you describe here is allowed in the Netherlands (I know it it not in Germany).
They way they do the slaughtering over here is knock them out, but it has to be done by a Muslim they pray to it, then they cut it a certain way, then we ship to the Western world.
There's a rising trend of anti-muslim views across Europe (especially Holland) in the past few years. Opportunistic politicians are just using the guise of animal welfare to further make clear that they are against muslim customs.
On July 01 2011 18:13 redux46 wrote: There's a rising trend of anti-muslim views across Europe (especially Holland) in the past few years. Opportunistic politicians are just using the guise of animal welfare to further make clear that they are against muslim customs.
The pvdd came with this who has also already improved animal rights on many other fronts here in the Netherlands.
But sure, throw it on the ''anti muslim views''... typical...
Ps you know the city next to the 1 i live not that long ago a ''sheep'' from a hobby farmer (aka just some guy who has a few animals in his field and takes good care of them) was found dead and everything eatable was taken off and they just let the rest lay there for this poor man to find it... guess who did that?
On July 01 2011 18:13 redux46 wrote: There's a rising trend of anti-muslim views across Europe (especially Holland) in the past few years. Opportunistic politicians are just using the guise of animal welfare to further make clear that they are against muslim customs.
What a joke, it's an initiative from the animal wellfare party. On top of that, it's funny that muslims feel themselves singled out while it is an anti foreign influences movement in general that has been devellopping across Europe in response to immigrating cultures which have no interest in integrating themselves in the nations existing culture. The fact that more then half of our youth prison and reeducation facilities are populated by youths comming from a group not making up more then 2% of the entire population should give some signal why you can discern growing discontent with certain minorities.
On July 01 2011 18:13 redux46 wrote: There's a rising trend of anti-muslim views across Europe (especially Holland) in the past few years. Opportunistic politicians are just using the guise of animal welfare to further make clear that they are against muslim customs.
You are really desperate to make this about muslim oppression ain't you.
Too bad the animal-party proposed this change. But incase that just shattered your world you may carry on and pretend that the animal party has a hardline anti-muslim stance.
On July 01 2011 18:13 redux46 wrote: There's a rising trend of anti-muslim views across Europe (especially Holland) in the past few years. Opportunistic politicians are just using the guise of animal welfare to further make clear that they are against muslim customs.
What a joke, it's an initiative from the animal wellfare party. On top of that, it's funny that muslims feel themselves singled out while it is an anti foreign influences movement in general that has been devellopping across Europe in response to immigrating cultures which have no interest in integrating themselves in the nations existing culture. The fact that more then half of our youth prison and reeducation facilities are populated by youths comming from a group not making up more then 2% of the entire population should give some signal why you can discern growing discontent with certain minorities.
You, my good sir, is the danger of a free western society, not 15 year old immigrants.
On July 01 2011 18:13 redux46 wrote: There's a rising trend of anti-muslim views across Europe (especially Holland) in the past few years. Opportunistic politicians are just using the guise of animal welfare to further make clear that they are against muslim customs.
You are really desperate to make this about muslim oppression ain't you.
Too bad the animal-party proposed this change. But incase that just shattered your world you may carry on and pretend that the animal party has a hardline anti-muslim stance.
No, it is just ignorance, there are german studies for 30 years ago that show that traditional butchering is worse than halal/kosher butchering. Game/set/match.
The animal party holds roughly 1% of seats in government. They have zero ability to pass laws and like my original comment made clear, have had their likely sincere beliefs against halal/kosher butchery used by the opportunistic politicians to again show voters that they are against muslim customs.
It's just a giant coincidence that the positions of the animal party that would adversely affect Dutch farmers are totally ignored but their position affecting muslims is picked up by the likes of Geert Wilders, who was less than 5% votes shy of winning the last election.
On July 01 2011 19:17 redux46 wrote: The animal party holds roughly 1% of seats in government. They have zero ability to pass laws and like my original comment made clear, have had their likely sincere beliefs against halal/kosher butchery used by the opportunistic politicians to again show voters that they are against muslim customs.
It's just a giant coincidence that the positions of the animal party that would adversely affect Dutch farmers are totally ignored but their position affecting muslims is picked up by the likes of Geert Wilders, who was less than 5% votes shy of winning the last election.
Well sure Geert Wilders will take any opportunity, but that doesn't mean the rest of the party's do that and that this whole thing is some ''anti muslim'' campaign, cause it simply ain't.
Where is the option: It really retarded that someone would care how you kill an animal when more then half the population of this planet does not afford to buy enough meat for a healthy diet... ? Im just sain.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://hugger-mugger-comicx.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/earthlings.jpg)
