Dutch Muslims & Jews united together

[Viking]

The religious aspect doesn't even necessarily come into it. Assume I just plain wanted to slaughter animals in the halal manner, but I had zero religious reason to do it.

To my mind, a regulation prohibiting that would be excessive if there was not strong scientific evidence that halal slaughter actually and in fact was substantially inferior in the way alleged - causing excessive suffering to animals.

See, that I do not agree with at all.

I think the state has an interest in establishing guidelines and rules. I do not think that anyone who can think up some way to not follow those rules can force the state to prove that their new means are a problem.

I think to the extent that there is an argument for halal, it has to be religious in nature. There are good and compelling reason to accomodate religious practices, and there is a reason freedom to practice religion is protected in general.

If you want to violate state regulations on whatever, the burden of proof is on you to convince the state that the law should be changed, and that burden is higher if you are not also claiming that the law creates an imposition on your religious beliefs.

Which isn't to say that it should be impossible to talk the legislature into changing the law to allow your practice, but it certainly should not be the case that your violation of the law should be accepted without such convincing. After all, that is the purpose of law, isn't it? To regulate behavior?

You have the scenario exactly backwards. The question isn't whether to enact some new exemption to an existing law, but whether to change an existing law to make it more restrictive.

No, the question is whether to end a religiously motivated exception permitting, what for non-muslims and non-jews would be considered, cruelty to animals.

[Malthus]

Looking around there doesn't seem to be much difference between a captive bolt stunned cow and a kosher slaughtered cow.  They typically both die the same way, through exsanguination.  The main difference seems to be that the Kosher animal is cut then falls unconscious a few seconds later and the bolt pistol animal is whacked on the head first or shocked.  The shocking seems to be less effective at rendering the animal unconscious.  I honestly don't see a problem here.  One is not strongly more or less humane then the other.

That's pretty well the argument.

But some chairwoman of a committee in the UK thinks this point is "quite ridiculous", which is apparently good enough evidence - for some. 

[Razgovory]

No, the question is whether to end a religiously motivated exception permitting, what for non-muslims and non-jews would be considered, cruelty to animals.

I don't see much evidence of cruelty.

[Viking]

'They Die Piece by Piece'

Did find this though.  Pretty nasty.

Time and money pressures in badly run abattoirs result in animal welfare regulations not being followed resulting in unnecessary animal suffering. No shit.

This is just a rehash of the Ninja Rabbi argument.

[Berkut]

The religious aspect doesn't even necessarily come into it. Assume I just plain wanted to slaughter animals in the halal manner, but I had zero religious reason to do it.

To my mind, a regulation prohibiting that would be excessive if there was not strong scientific evidence that halal slaughter actually and in fact was substantially inferior in the way alleged - causing excessive suffering to animals.

So far, I've seen exactly nothing in the way of evidence that this is true - other than argument-by-assertion, argument-by-insult, and circular arguments such as "Norway has this regulation, so it must be right".

That, before we even get to the question of whether a 'religious exemption' is reasonable.

German Vets - Halal, Kosher Slaughter Unacceptable, say German Vets
British Vet and British Food Standards - Halal and Kosher slaughter 'must end'

etc.etc.

Argument by assertion. There is no actual evidence of a scientific nature here.

Example:

"This is a major incision into the animal and to say that it doesn't suffer is quite ridiculous," said FAWC chairwoman, Dr Judy MacArthur Clark.

Compassion in World Farming backed the call, saying: "We believe that the law must be changed to require all animals to be stunned before slaughter."

Some chairwoman saying that "I think X, and anyone who disagrees is quite ridiculous" isn't the same thing as scientific evidence for X. It's her opinion.

Oddly, in this case the iron-age religious lunatics appear to have science on their side, and the modern-day humanists are resorting to argument-by-assertion and argument-by-authority. 

Uhh, its not like your side has trotted out a bunch of evidence that halal slaughter is always humane. You can argue that you are not convinced by the evidence (and I find your rejection of authority as "unscientific" rather odd - evidence is not always scientific), but you haven't really provided any counter examples.

The only argument made by Minsky is that screwed up non-halal slaughter can be worse than not screwed up halal slaughter. I suppose one can easily nix that argument by noting that screwed up halal slaughter is almost certainly a hell of a lot worse. I am no scientist, but I would guess fucking up slitting some animals throat is going to be pretty damn unpleasant for the animal.

Of course, that is a "scientific" opinion, so perhaps we should just ignore it.

[Malthus]

No, the question is whether to end a religiously motivated exception permitting, what for non-muslims and non-jews would be considered, cruelty to animals.

No, the question is whether to create a more restrictive law. There is exactly zero evidence that the process currently legal is cruel - other than assertion, etc.

The point for Berkut is that if the law is "presumptively" sensible - his position - then changing it is what requires evidence.

[Razgovory]

Time and money pressures in badly run abattoirs result in animal welfare regulations not being followed resulting in unnecessary animal suffering. No shit.

This is just a rehash of the Ninja Rabbi argument.

These seem to be the standard, not the exception.

[HVC]

"If you put a knife into the cow, it's going to make a noise: It says, 'Moo!' "

that shouldn't make me laugh, but it did. i'm a bad person.

[Viking]

No, the question is whether to end a religiously motivated exception permitting, what for non-muslims and non-jews would be considered, cruelty to animals.

I don't see much evidence of cruelty.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110408/ap_on_re_eu/eu_netherlands_ritual_slaughter_ban

The Royal Dutch Veterinary Association has come out in favor of banning the practice.

The organization said in a position statement it believes that during "slaughter of cattle while conscious, and to a lesser extent that of sheep, the animals' well-being is unacceptably damaged."

adding dutch vets to my list.... What I can't understand is that when ALL national veterinary associations conclude that slaughter without stunning to be cruel people keep arguing that slaughter without stunning can be humane?

[Razgovory]

No, the question is whether to end a religiously motivated exception permitting, what for non-muslims and non-jews would be considered, cruelty to animals.

No, the question is whether to create a more restrictive law. There is exactly zero evidence that the process currently legal is cruel - other than assertion, etc.

The point for Berkut is that if the law is "presumptively" sensible - his position - then changing it is what requires evidence.

The issue really is that it annoys some religious people, which makes it very desirable to those on this board that despise religion.  Viking has made this very clear when he posted his world trade center photo.

[Malthus]

Uhh, its not like your side has trotted out a bunch of evidence that halal slaughter is always humane. You can argue that you are not convinced by the evidence (and I find your rejection of authority as "unscientific" rather odd - evidence is not always scientific), but you haven't really provided any counter examples.

Point here is that, to change a law, I'd like to see some actual scientific evidence - of the sort you claimed was abundant - that the methods used are actually a problem. Is that so hard to understand?

The only argument made by Minsky is that screwed up non-halal slaughter can be worse than not screwed up halal slaughter. I suppose one can easily nix that argument by noting that screwed up halal slaughter is almost certainly a hell of a lot worse. I am no scientist, but I would guess fucking up slitting some animals throat is going to be pretty damn unpleasant for the animal.

Of course, that is a "scientific" opinion, so perhaps we should just ignore it.

So far, Minsky's article is the only thing of any scientific weight offered.

Your opinion is worth about as much as that of the people in those articles.

[Viking]

No, the question is whether to end a religiously motivated exception permitting, what for non-muslims and non-jews would be considered, cruelty to animals.

No, the question is whether to create a more restrictive law. There is exactly zero evidence that the process currently legal is cruel - other than assertion, etc.

The point for Berkut is that if the law is "presumptively" sensible - his position - then changing it is what requires evidence.

When both the government animal welfare bodies and the professional association of specialists on animal welfare all conclude that it is cruel then that is zero evidence?

[Viking]

No, the question is whether to end a religiously motivated exception permitting, what for non-muslims and non-jews would be considered, cruelty to animals.

No, the question is whether to create a more restrictive law. There is exactly zero evidence that the process currently legal is cruel - other than assertion, etc.

The point for Berkut is that if the law is "presumptively" sensible - his position - then changing it is what requires evidence.

The issue really is that it annoys some religious people, which makes it very desirable to those on this board that despise religion.  Viking has made this very clear when he posted his world trade center photo.

That was a response to The Brain posting a comment on religion and flying planes into buildings. Still, you haven't explained to me why your (or anybody else's) religion permits you special license to commit what all the government animal welfare bodies and veterinary professional associations consider animal cruelty.

[Slargos]

It all comes back to one thing.

"Woe is us. Remember the Holocaust, you anti-semites."

They will be beating that drum for a thousand thousand years.

[Berkut]

Uhh, its not like your side has trotted out a bunch of evidence that halal slaughter is always humane. You can argue that you are not convinced by the evidence (and I find your rejection of authority as "unscientific" rather odd - evidence is not always scientific), but you haven't really provided any counter examples.

Point here is that, to change a law, I'd like to see some actual scientific evidence - of the sort you claimed was abundant - that the methods used are actually a problem. Is that so hard to understand?

The only argument made by Minsky is that screwed up non-halal slaughter can be worse than not screwed up halal slaughter. I suppose one can easily nix that argument by noting that screwed up halal slaughter is almost certainly a hell of a lot worse. I am no scientist, but I would guess fucking up slitting some animals throat is going to be pretty damn unpleasant for the animal.

Of course, that is a "scientific" opinion, so perhaps we should just ignore it.

So far, Minsky's article is the only thing of any scientific weight offered.

Your opinion is worth about as much as that of the people in those articles.

See, that is more bullshit fallacy.

My "opinion" that an screwed up slaughter by halal methods is likely inhumane is perfectly valid - you don't need to be a scientist to figure that out. Rejecting a view simply because it does not meet some criteria you created for the sole purpose of rejecting the view is falalcious.

You might as well reject my view that it is raining today, since I am not a meteorologist.

You don't have to be a scientist to figure out that fucking up the slaughter of an animal is going to result in a lot of pain for said animal. Minsky's "view" that fucked up stunning is worse than not fucked up halal is just as non-scientific as the views you are rejecting.

The difference is that I *don't* reject his claim - because it is supportable on its merits. He doesn't need a degree in cow anatomy to figure that out. I reject its applicability since it is fallacious, since it is comparing two things that are not equivalent.

Funny, you accept his claim that a screwed up stunning slaughter is worse than a not screwed up halal slaughter on its face, no demand for "scientific evidence" from him, but demand scientific evidence for other equally "obvious" claims like the ones from actual vets that state that yeah, cutting an animals throat is pretty unpleasant for the animal.

In reaction to Razs post, which was rather disturning,about screwed up animal slaughtering:

The prohibition of stunning and the humane attitude towards the slaughtered animal expressed in shechita law limits the extent to which Jewish slaughterhouses can industrialize their procedures. The most industrialized attempt at a kosher slaughterhouse, Agriprocessors of Postville, Iowa, became the center of controversy in 2004, after People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals released gruesome undercover video of cattle struggling to their feet with their tracheas and esophagi ripped out after shechita. Some of the cattle actually got up and stood for a minute or so after being dumped from the rotating pen. [1][10]

Temple Grandin, a leading designer of animal handling systems, wrote, on visiting a shechita slaughterhouse, "I will never forget having nightmares after visiting the now defunct Spencer Foods plant in Spencer, Iowa fifteen years ago. Employees wearing football helmets attached a nose tong to the nose of a writhing beast suspended by a chain wrapped around one back leg. Each terrified animal was forced with an electric prod to run into a small stall which had a slick floor on a forty-five degree angle. This caused the animal to slip and fall so that workers could attach the chain to its rear leg [in order to raise it into the air]. As I watched this nightmare, I thought, 'This should not be happening in a civilized society.' In my diary I wrote, 'If hell exists, I am in it.' I vowed that I would replace the plant from hell with a kinder and gentler system."[11] However, Dr Grandin has said that "When the cut is done correctly, the animal appears not to feel it. From an animal welfare standpoint, the major concern during ritual slaughter are the stressful and cruel methods of restraint (holding) that are used in some plants."[12]

The UK Farm Animal Welfare Council says that the method by which Kosher and Halal meat is produced causes severe suffering to animals and it should be banned immediately. According to FAWC it can take up to two minutes for cattle to bleed to death, thus amounting to animal abuse. Compassion in World Farming also supported the recommendation saying "We believe that the law must be changed to require all animals to be stunned before slaughter."[13][14] The UK government rejected its recommendations.


Various research papers on cattle slaughter collected by Compassion In World Farming mention that "after the throat is cut, large clots can form at the severed ends of the carotid arteries, leading to occlusion of the wound (or "ballooning" as it is known in the slaughtering trade). Nick Cohen wrote in the New Statesman, "Occlusions slow blood loss from the carotids and delay the decline in blood pressure that prevents the suffering brain from blacking out. In one group of calves, 62.5 per cent suffered from ballooning. Even if the slaughterman is a master of his craft and the cut to the neck is clean, blood is carried to the brain by vertebral arteries and it keeps cattle conscious of their pain."

I am sure Malthus will reject Grandin in this case, as "not scientific" while accepting his word as gospel in Razs article.