Dutch Muslims & Jews united together

[Malthus]

. I think it is reasonable to presume that in fact whatever necessary burden needed to be met to pass said law was met already.

The only burden required to pass a law is to get a majority in the legislature.  Such a thing is easily achievable even in the absence of any scientific basis.

So? Now your argument is that in fact the law requiring stunning doesn't actually work to do what it is intended to do?

Again, burden of proof for that is on you, as the party demanding an exemption from the law. The law exists, so apparently some burden of proof was met, even if you don't think it is an acceptable one (although I suspect your decision to decide this one is not acceptable is strictly based on the outcome being one you don't like - I think plenty of research has been done on animal cruelty).

The argument is that the law requiring stunning is over-intrusive. Yours seems to be that regulations are in general presumptively not over-intrusive, which I find a really odd position for you to take.

[Valmy]

I suspect that's a very Christian ideal of spiritual.

As you very well know the concept of Jihad is a strong part of muslim spirituality.

Which is supposed to an inner struggle against evil.  There are lots of religions that hold peace, both inner and externally, as being a holy thing.

[Barrister]

. I think it is reasonable to presume that in fact whatever necessary burden needed to be met to pass said law was met already.

The only burden required to pass a law is to get a majority in the legislature.  Such a thing is easily achievable even in the absence of any scientific basis.

So? Now your argument is that in fact the law requiring stunning doesn't actually work to do what it is intended to do?

Again, burden of proof for that is on you, as the party demanding an exemption from the law. The law exists, so apparently some burden of proof was met, even if you don't think it is an acceptable one (although I suspect your decision to decide this one is not acceptable is strictly based on the outcome being one you don't like - I think plenty of research has been done on animal cruelty).

Berkut, in my experience in court, where we actually have formalized rules about who has the burden of proof and in what situation, I have found that arguing based on burden of proof to be an argument of last resort.  The judge wants to know what the facts are, and simply telling them that "well the other side didn't prove it" doesn't get me very far.

When it comes to arguing public policy, which does not have those formalized rules regarding burden of proof, I really don't think trying to argue burden of proof is a very useful means of looking at a question.

[Barrister]

I suspect that's a very Christian ideal of spiritual.

As you very well know the concept of Jihad is a strong part of muslim spirituality.

Which is supposed to an inner struggle against evil.  There are lots of religions that hold peace, both inner and externally, as being a holy thing.

That's one interpretation of jihad, and from what I understand it is far from universally accepted.

[Valmy]

And even then it discounts a lot of more militant Christian thinking.  It's a very New Age spirituality.

New Age is not very new then.

[Berkut]

You are presuming the very question under analysis - which is simply argument by circularity. Why on earth should I assume that because a law was passed, it had a logical and rational reason for it?

Why should you assume otherwise? I can certainly be convinced that some law was poorly thought out, but I am not going to assume it is without some evidence.

Do you use this "logic" on drug laws?

Absiolutely. IMO, there is considerable and convincing evidence that many of our laws in regards to the enforcement of drug laws have largely failed to achieve what they intended to do, or have excessive secondary costs associated with them.

But I *certainly* presume that the burden of proof is on those claiming that drug laws should be changed. I think in many cases that burden has been met.

Also, note that the law in the US is different, and allows for halal slaughter. How does your presumption fare, when laws in different jurisdictions contradict? Is something "humane" in the US, and "inhumane" in Norway?

Again, I have no personal issue with these laws in general, no matter which way they go. But of course it is the case that differing jurisdictions define "humane" in differing ways, and what one society finds humane may not be humane in another. I am quite certain, for example, that there are plenty of countries that engage in plenty of activities that I would find horribly inhumane. That doesn't mean that I think those practices ought to be legal here as well, since some other society finds them acceptable.

Why should the Netherlands be any different? The Chinese do things Americans would never countenance, and the Americans may do things the Dutch do not tolerate. So what?

Better to ask to see the proof, rather than simply assume it exists, I would have though.

There is a lot of evidence out there about animal suffering under slaughter. It is hardly just assumed. If you want to argue that hallal butchering is just as humane as non-hallal butchering with stunning, then go right ahead. Hell, I would probably come down on your side.

What I won't do is just assume that you don't even have to bother making the argument to begin with, or that illogical arguments are convincing (like comparing botched stunning with perfect ninja hallal butchering, and then asking us to just assume that there is enough botched stunning that it overall is actually LESS humane than not using stunning at all!).

[Valmy]

That's one interpretation of jihad, and from what I understand it is far from universally accepted.

My views do not necessarily reflect the views held by every single person on the planet no.  But I think they are very widely held both now and historically.

[The Minsky Moment]

So? Now your argument is that in fact the law requiring stunning doesn't actually work to do what it is intended to do?

The only point is that the fact it was passed into law in itself says nothing about its scientific validity.

I have already posted evidence in this thread indicating that kosher-style ritual slaughter can be just as humane as the stunning methods.  I have seen nothing to the contrary.

Again, burden of proof for that is on you, as the party demanding an exemption from the law.

I don't agree.  As stated above, I side with those who take the position that if the Free Exercise clause is to be effective, laws of formal general applicability must make reasonable accomodation to religious practice.

[DGuller]

So what is the argument of the Jewish lawyers?  Are you arguing that the general law about stunning is stupid and was unjustified in the first place, and that it was a mistake to enact it?  Or are you arguing that the law must have exemptions for Jews and Muslims?

[Berkut]

. I think it is reasonable to presume that in fact whatever necessary burden needed to be met to pass said law was met already.

The only burden required to pass a law is to get a majority in the legislature.  Such a thing is easily achievable even in the absence of any scientific basis.

So? Now your argument is that in fact the law requiring stunning doesn't actually work to do what it is intended to do?

Again, burden of proof for that is on you, as the party demanding an exemption from the law. The law exists, so apparently some burden of proof was met, even if you don't think it is an acceptable one (although I suspect your decision to decide this one is not acceptable is strictly based on the outcome being one you don't like - I think plenty of research has been done on animal cruelty).

The argument is that the law requiring stunning is over-intrusive. Yours seems to be that regulations are in general presumptively not over-intrusive, which I find a really odd position for you to take.

My position is that if the law already exists, then we should presume that it has passed whatever bar is necessary when weighing its obtrusiveness vs its utility.

I think any other position would be rather odd to take - should we just assume that some law fails that metric, and hence ought to be changed?

My position as someone who in general thinks that the bar should be pretty high, and also thinks that many existing laws fail to meet that bar is based on the reasoned evaluation of those laws, their usefulness, and their intrusiveness. Just because I think the burden of proof has been met in many cases of existing laws does not mean I think that there ought not to be said burden of proof on those asking for the laws to be changed.

Now, the reason many of these laws exist is that when they were passed, THEY did not satisfy the burden of proof placed on them to show that the law was both necessary and not an unreasonable imposition on freedom. And that is unfortunate. But in this case, I haven't even seen that argument made. Just assumed.

[Viking]

Surely the burden of proof is on the person proposing the general law in the first place, that the law (admitting no exceptions) is truly a necessary imposition on one's freedom to practice a trade one way or the other?

In short, if the goal is 'to prevent excessive or undue pain to an animal in slaughtering', is the best, least freedom-intrusive method of achieving that goal to say 'you must do your job in X manner'?

If so, some proof that X manner is indeed the only way to achieve the goal is required, right?

Well, no. As with all regulations the permitted activity is specified, anything outside the regulation is banned. This is the case regardless of any alternatives which might be just as good. It is not up to the state to disprove all possible alternatives to the procedures complying with regulations. You are not free to conclude that an activity not consistent with regulations meets the goals of the regulations and ignore them (e.g. my magick mormon underwear protects my balls from radiation).

[HVC]

So what is the argument of the Jewish lawyers?  Are you arguing that the general law about stunning is stupid and was unjustified in the first place, and that it was a mistake to enact it?  Or are you arguing that the law must have exemptions for Jews and Muslims?

Arguement seems to be that stunning laws are better then nothing (old days of sledge hammers and carving up still living cows), but not necessarily better then halal/kosher. Without proven evidence that stunning is better then kosher/halal then there's no reason to ban halal/kosher besides hating brown/jewish people. I side with the jewish and nominally uke lawyers.

[Razgovory]

I suspect that what would actually happen is some group of kosher butchers would suddenly find that in fact stunning isn't to forbidden as they once thought and set up shop selling kosher meat that has been stunned.

A very small number might, but most won't.  The reason is that what the butchers think isn't that relevant.  What matters is what their observant Jewish customers think.  And if the latter are being told by their rabbis that that stunned meat isn't kosher, they won't buy it.  They will buy it imported from Belgium or Germany or wherever else non-stunning is permitted.

Sure, that is the story given. And that is the basic story everytime some religious groups insists that their sacred cow not be killed. If you let blacks into the military, why, all the white boys will quit. If you let let gay people get married, then marriage will be destroyed. If you allow contraceptives to be sold, then everyone will have sex all the time.

What actually happens is that people typically don't care much, and all it takes is a minority of rabbis saying "Yeah, we did some study, and it turns out it isn't such a big deal..." and then in a generation or so, at the most, people will look back and chuckle about how worked up they got over crap like this.

And some ultra-ultra-ULTRA-orthodox splinter will break off espousing their absolute purity and they will go to the expense and trouble if importing their meat from wherever. Shrug.

I mean really, that is what we have now with the Orthodox anyway, right? People holding on to some semi-arbitrary set of rules the rest to the group has decided isn't really important anymore.

You really expect people to just suddenly stop a practice that has gone on for thousands of year just like that?  Kosher butcher shops have been banned before...

Looking around the Internet, apparently a study was done at Cornell Univeristy about Kosher slaughter and found that typically the animal lost consciousness within a few second of the initial cut.  It doesn't seem to be as "tortuous" as some would have us believe.

[Barrister]

So what is the argument of the Jewish lawyers?  Are you arguing that the general law about stunning is stupid and was unjustified in the first place, and that it was a mistake to enact it?  Or are you arguing that the law must have exemptions for Jews and Muslims?

Arguement seems to be that stunning laws are better then nothing (old days of sledge hammers and carving up still living cows), but not necessarily better then halal/kosher. Without proven evidence that stunning is better then kosher/halal then there's no reason to ban halal/kosher besides hating brown/jewish people. I side with the jewish lawyers.

Why is it people are afraid to disagree with jew lawyers, but not uke lawyers?

[Martinus]

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

Well, in truth, they have pretty much raided English parishes (at least the ones foolish enough to keep their money in Icelandic banks) and now refuse to give it back, so maybe there is some truth in it.