Dutch Muslims & Jews united together

[The Brain]

I think I'm gonna start debating nuclear safety regulations with the authorities and demand exceptions based on my religion.

[Razgovory]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Not the most pleasant thing to imagine.

[The Minsky Moment]

There are more "humane" ways of slaughtering animals for consumption.

A far more significant factor in "humanity" of animal slaughter than ritual vs. non-ritual methods are the means actually used to carry those out and the experience and skill of slaughtermen.  That it seems to me augurs in favor of the ritual methods because generally speaking there are higher requirements for slaughterman skill (and the meat commands a higher price).

But the bigger point is that if one is really interested in reducing discomfort for the animal, there are long lists of matters to be addressed of potentially greater impact than this one.  That suggests that the motivation here is probably not an abstract concern for animal welfare.

[garbon]

Yes. The methods of slaughtering used today are the most humane possible methods. Kosher/Halal is not the most humane possible method. Surely you are not going to argue an incompetent knocker vs the rabbi with ninja-skills? The experts have determined the most effective, safe and humane method.

Which experts are that? 

Captive bolt and electric stunning will induce instantaneous insensibility when they are properly applied. However, improper application can result in significant stress. All stunning methods trigger a massive secretion of epinephrine (Van der Wal 1978; Warrington 1974). This outpouring of epinephrine is greater than the secretion which would be triggered by an environmental stressor or a restraint method. Since the animal is expected to be unconscious, it does not feel the stress. One can definitely conclude that improperly applied stunning methods would be much more stressful than kosher slaughter with the long straight razor sharp knife. Kilgour (1978), one of the pioneers in animal welfare research, came to a similar conclusion on stunning and slaughter .
. . .
When the cut is done correctly, behavioural reactions to the cut are much less than reactions to air hissing, metal clanging noises, inversion or excessive pressure applied to the body. Discomfort during a properly done shechitah cut is probably minimal because cattle will stand still and do not resist a comfortable head restraint device.

From: http://www.grandin.com/ritual/kosher.slaugh.html

Not really sure how this is relevant cosidering the the proposed change is to require stunning prior to any ritual throat slitting.  The proposed aw wouldn't prevent the ritual, it would just rid the Dutch of the granted religious exceptions.

[Razgovory]

Really, bleeding out is not very painful.  There's a reason why slitting your wrists is a fairly common method of suicide.

Again, bleeding out is still more painful than blowing your brains out.

To bad captive bolt doesn't do that.

[The Brain]

Did they even remotely prove the existence of the Sky Fairy in the first place? If not then the Fairy's wishes regarding slaughter seem fairly irrelevant.

[Zoupa]

Did they even remotely prove the existence of the Sky Fairy in the first place? If not then the Fairy's wishes regarding slaughter seem fairly irrelevant.

I lolled 

[The Minsky Moment]

Not really sure how this is relevant cosidering the the proposed change is to require stunning prior to any ritual throat slitting. 

Because it indicates that stunning is not necessarily superior is there is a positive risk of improper application of stunning.

[Neil]

Yes. The methods of slaughtering used today are the most humane possible methods.

[garbon]

Not really sure how this is relevant cosidering the the proposed change is to require stunning prior to any ritual throat slitting. 

Because it indicates that stunning is not necessarily superior is there is a positive risk of improper application of stunning.

Presumably wouldn't whomever is doing the ritual slaughtering bit do the stun bit as well or at least be on site while some other staff manager did the stunning?  Seems like no matter what, it wouldn't be the "just anybody" who got hired at a slaughtering place.

[Viking]

Yes. The methods of slaughtering used today are the most humane possible methods. Kosher/Halal is not the most humane possible method. Surely you are not going to argue an incompetent knocker vs the rabbi with ninja-skills? The experts have determined the most effective, safe and humane method.

Which experts are that? 

Captive bolt and electric stunning will induce instantaneous insensibility when they are properly applied. However, improper application can result in significant stress. All stunning methods trigger a massive secretion of epinephrine (Van der Wal 1978; Warrington 1974). This outpouring of epinephrine is greater than the secretion which would be triggered by an environmental stressor or a restraint method. Since the animal is expected to be unconscious, it does not feel the stress. One can definitely conclude that improperly applied stunning methods would be much more stressful than kosher slaughter with the long straight razor sharp knife. Kilgour (1978), one of the pioneers in animal welfare research, came to a similar conclusion on stunning and slaughter .
. . .
When the cut is done correctly, behavioural reactions to the cut are much less than reactions to air hissing, metal clanging noises, inversion or excessive pressure applied to the body. Discomfort during a properly done shechitah cut is probably minimal because cattle will stand still and do not resist a comfortable head restraint device.

From: http://www.grandin.com/ritual/kosher.slaugh.html

Yes, your autistic expert with cutting edge science from 1978 concludes that a ninja rabbi might be better than a stunner that misses. You can't go around comparing the ideal result of kosher/halal with failures of modern humane slaughter. If you just read the sentence before your bolded one. I bolded a different bit. The scientific consensus of veterinarians and their professional associations which advise state veterinarians and state animal welfare agencies is the basis we should use. Grandin argues that best practice can be devised for Kosher and Halal which can be as good as sub-optimal stunning. Not to mention that she in her later work advises that stunning be used in concert with ritual slaughter, which the rabbis and mullahs refuse.

[The Minsky Moment]

Presumably wouldn't whomever is doing the ritual slaughtering bit do the stun bit as well or at least be on site while some other staff manager did the stunning? 

As to the former, not sure, but I doubt it because the idea would be to make a quick cut right away.  In any event, skill at cutting /= skill at stunning.

The real issue here is that the weight of rabbinical opinion is that stunning is not kosher.  So in practice eliminating the exemption means eliminating these businesses because their customers won't buy the meat.

[Barrister]

There are more "humane" ways of slaughtering animals for consumption.

A far more significant factor in "humanity" of animal slaughter than ritual vs. non-ritual methods are the means actually used to carry those out and the experience and skill of slaughtermen.  That it seems to me augurs in favor of the ritual methods because generally speaking there are higher requirements for slaughterman skill (and the meat commands a higher price).

But the bigger point is that if one is really interested in reducing discomfort for the animal, there are long lists of matters to be addressed of potentially greater impact than this one.  That suggests that the motivation here is probably not an abstract concern for animal welfare.

I would think that someone concerned with animal welfare would spend more time worrying about how animals live, rather than about the precise way that they die.  I'm pretty sure if you could ask a cow, they wouldn't be thrilled about any of the different means of slaughtering them.

[The Minsky Moment]

Yes, your autistic expert with cutting edge science from 1978 concludes that a ninja rabbi might be better than a stunner that misses. You can't go around comparing the ideal result of kosher/halal with failures of modern humane slaughter. If you just read the sentence before your bolded one. I bolded a different bit. The scientific consensus of veterinarians and their professional associations which advise state veterinarians and state animal welfare agencies is the basis we should use. Grandin argues that best practice can be devised for Kosher and Halal which can be as good as sub-optimal stunning.

So other than mocking Ms. Grandin for her disability and making a unsupported appeal to supposed, uncited authority, is there an argument being made here?

[Viking]

Yes, your autistic expert with cutting edge science from 1978 concludes that a ninja rabbi might be better than a stunner that misses. You can't go around comparing the ideal result of kosher/halal with failures of modern humane slaughter. If you just read the sentence before your bolded one. I bolded a different bit. The scientific consensus of veterinarians and their professional associations which advise state veterinarians and state animal welfare agencies is the basis we should use. Grandin argues that best practice can be devised for Kosher and Halal which can be as good as sub-optimal stunning.

So other than mocking Ms. Grandin for her disability and making a unsupported appeal to supposed, uncited authority, is there an argument being made here?

I don't mock Dr. Grandin, at least I get her title right. I highlighted a different part of your reference pointing out that you were highlighting a part which is comparing apples to oranges.