Dutch Muslims & Jews united together

[Razgovory]

I'm glad I'm not on the side agreeing with Marty or Slargos.

[Viking]

praised by PETA = kiss of scientific death...

Grandin's criticism is about the knife being used. Her argument only makes sense if the length of the knife matters. Johnson shows that the pain continues for 2 minutes, I can't see that being consistent with a difference in knife length mattering. She does not seem to challenge his thesis, his methods or his veracity. Grandin is a specialist on animal handling, not the neural functioning of cattle.

I imagine the proper equipment would matter in a case like this.  Someone not trained and properly equipped can't really be expected to give good example of how the job is done.

  If I am to understand you correctly, your argument against the German study is that the captive bolt being the more humane tool is based on the captive bolt not working properly.

Yes, he has reason to believe that his own methodology was insufficient, so the conclusion is that his study is not valid. He compares halal slaughter to a non-functioning stunning device and concludes that the halal slaughter is more humane. This is not a case of comparing apples to oranges, it is comparing granny smiths to rotten pink ladies and concluding that granny smith apples are better. This does not mean that the conclusion he reaches should be turned 180 degrees, it just means that his study should not be used to justify anything. That is how science works.

[The Minsky Moment]

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.

That was not the only argument. 

The argument was that expert opinon (as cited) holds that both methods are consistent with best humane practices, and that much more significant are issues like the restraints and the implementing protocols.  No one in the thread has yet responded to this point other than vague citations to pronouncements of national professional associations, which is not scientific evidence.

The second argument is that because of the ritual requirements for kosher/hallal slaughter, training and experience of the slaughterman is likely to be higher and thus as a matter of what actually happens in real life there is less risk of inhumane treatment. 

Both arguments, if sound, suggest that there is no problem here that needs fixing.  Both also suggest that to the extent that one is concerned about humane treatment -- which does appear to be a real problem -- the focus really ought to be on improving training and enforcing proper restraint protocols, not singling out an exemption that applies to a small minority.

I also disgaree with your last point.  Because while botched cutting is admittedly horrible, so is botched having one's head shot by a bolt gun, or botched multiple electrocutions not resulting in loss of consciousness.  It is not obvious to me that the first is appreciable worst than the others.

[Slargos]

I'm glad I'm not on the side agreeing with Marty or Slargos.

Me too, you little me-too.

Given that you've expressed the same mentality that gives these people good cause to fight over offenses anywhere up to 2000 years old, it's not surprising that you'd come to the same conclusions.

[HVC]

Marti, aren't you the guy in another thread was all for fois gras and the that brandy drowned bird thingy? they're coming after those next

[Viking]

While I can see fighting to get the law thrown out or modified for all, I don't feel comfortable supporting individuals fighting to keep only their exemptions. Perhaps I'm reading the articles wrong, but from what I can see, I only see this: "Dutch law required animals to be stunned before being slaughtered but made an exception for ritual halaal and kosher slaughters."  Does that mean that I can't slit an animal's throat for a non-religious reason?

The exemption that is being repealed is the exemption that allows Muslims and Jews to slaughter without stunning. They are not being prohibited from slaughtering by exsanguination, they just have to stun the animal first so it doesn't feel the pain.

I think my point wasn't clear.  Would I be allowed under the current exemption to slaughter an animal by exsanguination without stunning?  What makes me uncomfortable is supporting an exemption for specific religious groups...as it seems to belie the fact that the law isn't actually needed.

No, the exception only applies to ritual halal or kosher slaughter according to the article in the first post.

[Razgovory]

praised by PETA = kiss of scientific death...

Grandin's criticism is about the knife being used. Her argument only makes sense if the length of the knife matters. Johnson shows that the pain continues for 2 minutes, I can't see that being consistent with a difference in knife length mattering. She does not seem to challenge his thesis, his methods or his veracity. Grandin is a specialist on animal handling, not the neural functioning of cattle.

I imagine the proper equipment would matter in a case like this.  Someone not trained and properly equipped can't really be expected to give good example of how the job is done.

  If I am to understand you correctly, your argument against the German study is that the captive bolt being the more humane tool is based on the captive bolt not working properly.

Yes, he has reason to believe that his own methodology was insufficient, so the conclusion is that his study is not valid. He compares halal slaughter to a non-functioning stunning device and concludes that the halal slaughter is more humane. This is not a case of comparing apples to oranges, it is comparing granny smiths to rotten pink ladies and concluding that granny smith apples are better. This does not mean that the conclusion he reaches should be turned 180 degrees, it just means that his study should not be used to justify anything. That is how science works.

If these devices don't work in laboratory conditions, why should we expect them to work in the slaughter house?  And again, the methodology very well may be flawed with the New Zealand study do to improper tools and techniques.

[Viking]

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.

That was not the only argument. 

The argument was that expert opinon (as cited) holds that both methods are consistent with best humane practices, and that much more significant are issues like the restraints and the implementing protocols.  No one in the thread has yet responded to this point other than vague citations to pronouncements of national professional associations, which is not scientific evidence.

The second argument is that because of the ritual requirements for kosher/hallal slaughter, training and experience of the slaughterman is likely to be higher and thus as a matter of what actually happens in real life there is less risk of inhumane treatment. 

Both arguments, if sound, suggest that there is no problem here that needs fixing.  Both also suggest that to the extent that one is concerned about humane treatment -- which does appear to be a real problem -- the focus really ought to be on improving training and enforcing proper restraint protocols, not singling out an exemption that applies to a small minority.

I also disgaree with your last point.  Because while botched cutting is admittedly horrible, so is botched having one's head shot by a bolt gun, or botched multiple electrocutions not resulting in loss of consciousness.  It is not obvious to me that the first is appreciable worst than the others.

Read this, you seem to have missed it. the latest up to date peer reviewed science. 

http://languish.org/forums/index.php?topic=5349.msg273349#msg273349

[The Minsky Moment]

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

I posted a link to her entire article on the subject; there are also other articles on the website.  I would encourage you to read the entire thing and not just the pull quotes from an editorialist, or for that matter the pull quotes that I used.

I believe that taken as a whole, the work and its conclusions are consistent with what I last posted in the thread.

[The Minsky Moment]

Read this, you seem to have missed it. the latest up to date peer reviewed science. 

http://languish.org/forums/index.php?topic=5349.msg273349#msg273349

No I didn't miss it.  I considered it more carefully then you did.  The problem is that the researchers were not trained in kosher slaughter and did not properly follow the techniques.

The knife used in this experiment was much shorter than the special long knives that are used in Kosher slaughter. The use of a shorter knife may possibly have had an effect on the painfulness of the cut. The author has observed that shorter knives, where the tip of the knife gouges into the wound during the cut, will cause struggling. An animal may also struggle when the wound closes back over the knife during the cut. Since the calves were anesthetized, it was impossible to observe behavioral reaction during the cut. From reading the methods sections in the papers, it was not possible to determine if the wound was held open during the cut, which may help reduce pain. The knife used in this experiment was similar to many of the knives the author has observed being used for halal slaughter. The special long knife used in kosher slaughter is important. When the knife is used correctly on adult cattle, there was little or no behavioral reaction (Grandin, 1992, 1994). Barnett et al (2007) reported similar reactions in chickens. Only four chickens out of 100 had a behavioral reaction. Grandin (1994) reported that the behavioral reaction of cattle was greater when a hand was waved in their faces compared to well done Kosher slaughter. All of the cattle were extensively raised animals with a large flight zone. They were all held in an upright position in a restraint box. The results of this study clearly show that the use of a knife with a 24.5 cm long blade definitely causes pain. Another factor that may have had an effect on pain was the use of a grinding wheel to sharpen the knife instead of a whet stone. There is a need to repeat this experiment with a Kosher knife and a skilled shochet who obeys all the Kosher rules for correct cutting. 

http://www.grandin.com/ritual/slaughter.without.stunning.causes.pain.html

[Razgovory]

I'm glad I'm not on the side agreeing with Marty or Slargos.

Me too, you little me-too.

Given that you've expressed the same mentality that gives these people good cause to fight over offenses anywhere up to 2000 years old, it's not surprising that you'd come to the same conclusions.

Well, look on the bright side.  Your people won't be around in 2,000 years.  Probably won't be around in 200.  Yet there will still be Jews.

[DGuller]

There is a huge demand for "kosher" products in the US for example, certainly large enough that it isn't being served by Rabbi Bob and his team of ninja butchers operating in some agrarian slaughter yard, where each animal is lovingly handled like a pet before it is gently put to sleep.

  You can be very amusing when you don't disagree with me.

[Viking]

If these devices don't work in laboratory conditions, why should we expect them to work in the slaughter house?  And again, the methodology very well may be flawed with the New Zealand study do to improper tools and techniques.

One german guy was sloppy with his stunner. He used this possibly non-functioning stunner to conclude that stunners don't work. He later concludes that his stunner didn't work after the work is done and his work is repeated many times coming to the opposite conclusion he did.

[The Minsky Moment]

Tne german guy was sloppy with his stunner. He used this possibly non-functioning stunner to conclude that stunners don't work. He later concludes that his stunner didn't work after the work is done and his work is repeated many times coming to the opposite conclusion he did.

No doubt the workers earning minimum wage in non-kosher industrial slaughterhouses are far more diligent than that guy.

[Slargos]

I am curious: If it's found through careful and empirical study that animals do in fact suffer more from Kosher/Halal slaughter (either or both) than from the use of the stun bolt, would you folks who are currently viciously against the removal of this exception relent? Or is it more important to consider the religious implications than animal "rights".