Dutch Muslims & Jews united together

[HVC]

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.

read that article posted by raz. the mooing cow thng is the funniest sad thing i've read in a while.

[Razgovory]

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.

Incorrect.  The author said it may have functioned incorrectly.  When did put this caveat on his experimentation?  If some Germans are sloppy with it in a scientific experiment, what does that say about some high school drop out doing this 3,000 times a day?

[Slargos]

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.

And if Stephen Hawking were to get a job as a playing card packer at a chineese plant for a day, I expect he would do much, much worse at it than the below-poverty-line workers. Strange, I know. But I suspect it to be true.

[HVC]

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".

i would. i'd also expect the politicians to now go after the factory farms and actually moniter slaughter houses since the deem animal welfare so important now.

[The Minsky Moment]

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".

If the difference were proven to be significant, I would change my position.

[Viking]

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

but it seems you missed the bit where the New Scientist article said

The researchers then showed that the pain originates from cutting throat nerves, not from the loss of blood, suggesting the severed nerves send pain signals until the time of death. Finally, they stunned animals 5 seconds after incision and showed that this makes the pain signal disappear instantly.

since Grandin's reply is about the rate of loss of blood.

[Razgovory]

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".

I was curious about the opposite actually.  We have you who hates Jews, and Viking and Marty who hate all religions.  All three of you have made it abundantly clear that this is about religion rather then say, law or science.

[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".

i would. i'd also expect the politicians to now go after the factory farms and actually moniter slaughter houses since the deem animal welfare so important now.

By the same token I expect you're one of those people who cried that USA could not intervene in Kosovo "since they didn't intervene in Rwanda".

It's a ridiculous argument, and it also assumes that because halal slaughter is now illegal, that it will be vigorously pursued.

A lot of these regulations are more meant to steer public opinion rather than expected to be followed to the letter immediately after being passed.

[Viking]

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.

No doubt the animal welfare regulates include sections that insist that the personnel using the equipment are trained in the use and maintenance of said equipment. Again, Ninja Rabbi fallacy.

[The Minsky Moment]

since Grandin's reply is about the rate of loss of blood.

Uh, no it isn't   

[HVC]

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".

i would. i'd also expect the politicians to now go after the factory farms and actually moniter slaughter houses since the deem animal welfare so important now.

By the same token I expect you're one of those people who cried that USA could not intervene in Kosovo "since they didn't intervene in Rwanda".

It's a ridiculous argument, and it also assumes that because halal slaughter is now illegal, that it will be vigorously pursued.

A lot of these regulations are more meant to steer public opinion rather than expected to be followed to the letter immediately after being passed.

i really would change my opnion. i would just know that they went throught the trouble not becasue of the cause but becasue who the cause inconvenienced.

[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.

Incorrect.  The author said it may have functioned incorrectly.  When did put this caveat on his experimentation?  If some Germans are sloppy with it in a scientific experiment, what does that say about some high school drop out doing this 3,000 times a day?

It seems that every other study repeating his work comes to the opposite conclusion. This may be the reason he concluded that his stunner didn't work.

[Razgovory]

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.

No doubt the animal welfare regulates include sections that insist that the personnel using the equipment are trained in the use and maintenance of said equipment. Again, Ninja Rabbi fallacy.

There is a falacy but it's not called "Ninja Rabbi".

[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".

I was curious about the opposite actually.  We have you who hates Jews, and Viking and Marty who hate all religions.  All three of you have made it abundantly clear that this is about religion rather then say, law or science.

Nonsense.

While I enjoy the fact that the kikes get their panties in a bunch over this, I wouldn't support the ban if it can be concluded that kike-killing the animals is just as "humane" as pounding them in the brain.

The way I see it, slaughter by exanguination is either permitted or it is not. There is no room in a secular society for these kinds of religious exceptions.

[Viking]

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".

I was curious about the opposite actually.  We have you who hates Jews, and Viking and Marty who hate all religions.  All three of you have made it abundantly clear that this is about religion rather then say, law or science.

That is untrue with respect to me. I object to any special exemptions for religion in addition to laws targeted at specific religions.