News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

Dutch Muslims & Jews united together

Started by viper37, June 16, 2011, 03:12:45 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

The Brain

I think I'm gonna start debating nuclear safety regulations with the authorities and demand exceptions based on my religion. :hmm:
Women want me. Men want to be with me.

Razgovory

I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

The Minsky Moment

Quote from: Zoupa on June 16, 2011, 04:53:55 PM
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.
The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.
--Joan Robinson

garbon

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 16, 2011, 04:53:58 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 16, 2011, 04:44:01 PM
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? 

QuoteCaptive 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.
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

Razgovory

Quote from: Viking on June 16, 2011, 04:55:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 16, 2011, 04:53:35 PM
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.
I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

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.
Women want me. Men want to be with me.

Zoupa

Quote from: The Brain on June 16, 2011, 05:01:35 PM
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  :lol:

The Minsky Moment

Quote from: garbon on June 16, 2011, 04:59:00 PM
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.
The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.
--Joan Robinson

Neil

Quote from: Viking on June 16, 2011, 04:44:01 PM
Yes. The methods of slaughtering used today are the most humane possible methods.
:yeahright:
I do not hate you, nor do I love you, but you are made out of atoms which I can use for something else.

garbon

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 16, 2011, 05:03:52 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 16, 2011, 04:59:00 PM
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.
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

Viking

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 16, 2011, 04:53:58 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 16, 2011, 04:44:01 PM
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? 

QuoteCaptive 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.
First Maxim - "There are only two amounts, too few and enough."
First Corollary - "You cannot have too many soldiers, only too few supplies."
Second Maxim - "Be willing to exchange a bad idea for a good one."
Second Corollary - "You can only be wrong or agree with me."

A terrorist which starts a slaughter quoting Locke, Burke and Mill has completely missed the point.
The fact remains that the only person or group to applaud the Norway massacre are random Islamists.

The Minsky Moment

Quote from: garbon on June 16, 2011, 05:08:27 PM
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.
The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.
--Joan Robinson

Barrister

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 16, 2011, 04:58:56 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on June 16, 2011, 04:53:55 PM
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.
Posts here are my own private opinions.  I do not speak for my employer.

The Minsky Moment

Quote from: Viking on June 16, 2011, 05:12:52 PM
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?
The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.
--Joan Robinson

Viking

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 16, 2011, 05:15:19 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 16, 2011, 05:12:52 PM
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.
First Maxim - "There are only two amounts, too few and enough."
First Corollary - "You cannot have too many soldiers, only too few supplies."
Second Maxim - "Be willing to exchange a bad idea for a good one."
Second Corollary - "You can only be wrong or agree with me."

A terrorist which starts a slaughter quoting Locke, Burke and Mill has completely missed the point.
The fact remains that the only person or group to applaud the Norway massacre are random Islamists.