Dutch Muslims & Jews united together

[Valmy]

I don't base my view on slaughter on the divine commands of thor as relvealed to us by Erik the Assraped

Iceland would be so much more awesome if you did.

[HVC]

I don't base my view on slaughter on the divine commands of thor as relvealed to us by Erik the Assraped

Iceland would be so much more awesome if you did.

could have gotten out of this whole bankruptcy thing by just raiding england. maybe they should follow in the forebearers train of thouhgt

[DGuller]

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.

That's a very shoddy argument.  By that logic, wearing a seatbelt is not necessarily superior to not wearing one, because in some rare cases you're better off being ejected from the car rather than remaining strapped to it. 

You cannot compare methods by taking the best case of one against the worst case of another.  There is a reason we have a concept of averages and expectation.

[Viking]

I admit, I'm biased against Icelanders.  An Icelandic exchange student broke my arm in middle school.  I have never forgiven the whole misbegotten race.

Well there are only about 100,000 of them so actually you got a pretty large population sample there.

320,000

[Razgovory]

You attacked the founder of the Muslim religion on the basis of being a murder and rapist.  So I pointed out the founders of Iceland were also rapists and murders.  However, neither you or the majority of Muslims are rapists and murderers.  So I'm not sure how relevant your original attack was.

Nobody and I mean nobody is claiming that the ethical, moral and theological claims of the founders of Iceland have any value due to who made them, muslims do. There is no inherited guilt. Just because my ancestors were wrong and immoral doesn't meant that I am wrong and immoral, especially when I profoundly object to their moral and ethical claims. The difference between me and the modern muslim demanding to be allowed to use halal slaughter is that I don't base my view on slaughter on the divine commands of thor as relvealed to us by Erik the Assraped, they do base their view on slaughter on the divine commands of allah as revealed to us by Mohammed the Kiddieraper. That is the difference. The sayings and actions of my ancestors are not in any way relevant to me.

What do you base your views on?  And if I made a personal attack on who you take inspiration from, would that invalidate those views?

[Razgovory]

I admit, I'm biased against Icelanders.  An Icelandic exchange student broke my arm in middle school.  I have never forgiven the whole misbegotten race.

Well there are only about 100,000 of them so actually you got a pretty large population sample there.

320,000

And I shall not rest till I find the one that broke my arm.  Since I don't actually remember his is name I'll just break the arms of every Icelander I come across.  His first name was Peter.  If you could point him out, it would make this go a lot quicker.

[Viking]

I admit, I'm biased against Icelanders.  An Icelandic exchange student broke my arm in middle school.  I have never forgiven the whole misbegotten race.

Well there are only about 100,000 of them so actually you got a pretty large population sample there.

320,000

And I shall not rest till I find the one that broke my arm.  Since I don't actually remember his is name I'll just break the arms of every Icelander I come across.  His first name was Peter.  If you could point him out, it would make this go a lot quicker.

First name Peter
Exchange student in the USA

Tell me his age and I can find him.

[Razgovory]

First name Peter
Exchange student in the USA

Tell me his age and I can find him.

Probably the around the same as me.  28-30.

[DGuller]

If you truly respect religious people you challenge their silly ideas. Smiling and nodding means treating them like children or retards that you don't expect thought from.

I'm sure most atheists attempt the former first, only to resign themselves to the latter.

[Viking]

You attacked the founder of the Muslim religion on the basis of being a murder and rapist.  So I pointed out the founders of Iceland were also rapists and murders.  However, neither you or the majority of Muslims are rapists and murderers.  So I'm not sure how relevant your original attack was.

Nobody and I mean nobody is claiming that the ethical, moral and theological claims of the founders of Iceland have any value due to who made them, muslims do. There is no inherited guilt. Just because my ancestors were wrong and immoral doesn't meant that I am wrong and immoral, especially when I profoundly object to their moral and ethical claims. The difference between me and the modern muslim demanding to be allowed to use halal slaughter is that I don't base my view on slaughter on the divine commands of thor as relvealed to us by Erik the Assraped, they do base their view on slaughter on the divine commands of allah as revealed to us by Mohammed the Kiddieraper. That is the difference. The sayings and actions of my ancestors are not in any way relevant to me.

What do you base your views on?  And if I made a personal attack on who you take inspiration from, would that invalidate those views?

Norwegian Food Safety Authority, get going with your personal attacks.

Attacks on the personal morality of Mohammed are a perfectly counter to the appeal to the authority of Mohammed, which is precisely what the muslim argument for halal is.

[Razgovory]

Anyway, it doesn't. I just assumed that you would defend them from other unwarranted attacks.

Eh, it's not like CdM or Siegy ranting on about Muslims.  This is a state using it's power to harass people.

[Razgovory]

http://Norwegian Food Safety Authority, get going with your personal attacks.

Attacks on the personal morality of Mohammed are a perfectly counter to the appeal to the authority of Mohammed, which is precisely what the muslim argument for halal is.

You have no ideas beyond Norwegian food safety authority?

[Viking]

http://Norwegian Food Safety Authority, get going with your personal attacks.

Attacks on the personal morality of Mohammed are a perfectly counter to the appeal to the authority of Mohammed, which is precisely what the muslim argument for halal is.

You have no ideas beyond Norwegian food safety authority?

When it comes to animal welfare and the treatment of animals during slaughter, yes.

The Norwegian food safety authority deals with domesticated animal welfare and regulates Veterinarians working with farm animals as well, strange as that might be. I could refer to the equivalent bodies for most of Europe. I do not refer to Sven the Seasick.

[Grey Fox]

Anyway, it doesn't. I just assumed that you would defend them from other unwarranted attacks.

Eh, it's not like CdM or Siegy ranting on about Muslims.  This is a state using it's power to harass people.

You mean the Dutch government? It's retarded PETA MPs pushing for a stupid legislation.

[The Minsky Moment]

Yeah, but the ordinance in Lukumi Babalu was passed specifically to outlaw the Santeria practice of sacrifice, rather than a law of general applicability regarding killing of animals...

but in fact the ordinances in Lukumi Babalu were laws of general applicability.   One of the ordinances incorporated state animal cruelty laws and enhanced penalties.  Another provided that "it shall be unlawful for any person, persons, corporations or associations to sacrifice any animal within the corporate limits of the City of Hialeah, Florida" and defined sacrifice  as "to unnecessarily kill, torment, torture, or mutilate an animal in a public or private ritual or ceremony not for the primary purpose of food consumption."  So nothing in the law wasspecific to Santeira or the Santeria practice or any indeed any specific religious practice.

Kennedy argued in his opinion that the circumstances suggested intent to target Santeria.  But a majority of the Court either rejected the intent-vased standard (Scalia/Rehnquist) or rejected the Smith rule outright (Souter, O'Connor, Blackmun). 

The fact is Employment Division v. Smith is the outlier in free exercise jurisprudence - it can't logically be squared with Barnette (religious opt out from flag salute) and particularly Yoder (Amish opt out from compulsory school attendance).  Smith was a classic case of bad facts, making bad law -- it concerned ritual use of peyote and was decided at the time when the "drug epidemic" and the associated "drug war" hysteria were at their height; even then only 5 justices could be assembled to back the majority opinion.  In the federal sphere, it has been superseded by RFRA and at the state level, state supreme courts and legislatures have in many cases filled the breach.  How Smith would fare today is unclear given the turnover in the Court since then, but the fact that the Court has had little opportunity to address the matter in recent years (as opposed to the stream of Establishment Clause cases) is indicative that the norm in America is reasonable accomodation even for laws of general applicability,