Dutch Muslims & Jews united together

[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.

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.

Slaughter by exsanguination is not the issue.  Both methods employ it.  In both cases the animal is bleed out while alive.

[The Minsky Moment]

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.

No doubt there are regs like that.
So when new guy gets on the job, they take an hour or two to walk through all the equipment and procedures, and then sign a form saying they've complied.

See if you actually cared about the problem you would be focusing your efforts on enforcing the regs as they exist and addressing the real causes of abuse.  But that would cost time, money and effort, whereas targeting an exemption that benefits an unpopular minority does not.  this is 1% science, 99% politics.

[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.

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.

It just blows my mind that you'd actually believe a European government would pass laws to "inconvenience" the Jews. It would be a distant possibility in Eastern Europe, but certainly not in the civilized parts.

It's hard enough to pass laws regulating the insanities of muslims, let alone touching the Jews.

[Berkut]

You know, as the supposed resident religion hater, I don't really understand why people are so opposed to the idea of "special exemptions" based on religious practice.

I mean, I am supposed to be the anti-religious one, but I have no problem at all with the idea that the state in many cases should make reasonable accommodation for peoples religious practices. The alternative is so much worse, IMO.

[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.

Slaughter by exsanguination is not the issue.  Both methods employ it.  In both cases the animal is bleed out while alive.

Why do you need to muddle it other than for the sake of being an argumentative bitch? You know what I'm talking about.

[Razgovory]

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

Why did you post the big poster with the words "Imagine a world with out religion"?

[Viking]

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

Uh, no it isn't   

yes it is, her Ninja-Jew-To used for animal slaughter is more efficient at cutting the thought. The Johnson study shows that the pain is not due to loss of blood, but rather due to cutting of the nerves.

[Razgovory]

Why do you need to muddle it other than for the sake of being an argumentative bitch? You know what I'm talking about.

Most of the time I really don't.  Most of the time you are really boring and I kind of just skim what you wrote.  Do people's eyes glaze over when you talk?  Mostly it's just "Bork bork bork Jews.  Bork bork.  Jews bork bork."

[Slargos]

You know, as the supposed resident religion hater, I don't really understand why people are so opposed to the idea of "special exemptions" based on religious practice.

I mean, I am supposed to be the anti-religious one, but I have no problem at all with the idea that the state in many cases should make reasonable accommodation for peoples religious practices. The alternative is so much worse, IMO.

And I am religious, yet I don't see a need for the state to accommodate me. The whole notion of accommodating the religious seems baroque to me. Enough people swear by the Paedophile that they should get special exceptions. But what about my fervent belief in the Cookie Monster and His Commands that all cookies must be set free, and that no man shall pass a law that demands payment in exchange for Cookies?

By all rights, I should be allowed to take whatever Cookies I want from store shelves. My religion DEMANDS it.

[Slargos]

Why do you need to muddle it other than for the sake of being an argumentative bitch? You know what I'm talking about.

Most of the time I really don't.  Most of the time you are really boring and I kind of just skim what you wrote.  Do people's eyes glaze over when you talk?  Mostly it's just "Bork bork bork Jews.  Bork bork.  Jews bork bork."

Do you ever talk to people outside your immediate family? How would you know what a normal reaction is to talking about Jews?

[Razgovory]

You know, as the supposed resident religion hater, I don't really understand why people are so opposed to the idea of "special exemptions" based on religious practice.

I mean, I am supposed to be the anti-religious one, but I have no problem at all with the idea that the state in many cases should make reasonable accommodation for peoples religious practices. The alternative is so much worse, IMO.

And I am religious, yet I don't see a need for the state to accommodate me. The whole notion of accommodating the religious seems baroque to me. Enough people swear by the Paedophile that they should get special exceptions. But what about my fervent belief in the Cookie Monster and His Commands that all cookies must be set free, and that no man shall pass a law that demands payment in exchange for Cookies?

By all rights, I should be allowed to take whatever Cookies I want from store shelves. My religion DEMANDS it.

You live in a country with an established state church.

[Viking]

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.

No doubt there are regs like that.
So when new guy gets on the job, they take an hour or two to walk through all the equipment and procedures, and then sign a form saying they've complied.

See if you actually cared about the problem you would be focusing your efforts on enforcing the regs as they exist and addressing the real causes of abuse.  But that would cost time, money and effort, whereas targeting an exemption that benefits an unpopular minority does not.  this is 1% science, 99% politics.

You are operating with a lot of pejorative assumption about secular humane slaughter. Apart from PETA exposés of abattoirs, what do you know about correctly conducted modern animal slaughter? It's a bit disingenuous of you to propose that because I can't stop all abuse I must suffer the legalization of abuse elsewhere. I wouldn't have expected you to take such a "continental" position.

[Razgovory]

Why do you need to muddle it other than for the sake of being an argumentative bitch? You know what I'm talking about.

Most of the time I really don't.  Most of the time you are really boring and I kind of just skim what you wrote.  Do people's eyes glaze over when you talk?  Mostly it's just "Bork bork bork Jews.  Bork bork.  Jews bork bork."

Do you ever talk to people outside your immediate family? How would you know what a normal reaction is to talking about Jews?

At least once a week.

[Viking]

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

Why did you post the big poster with the words "Imagine a world with out religion"?

Yes, and I told you that I posted it responding to a off-topic post by the brain.

[Slargos]

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.

No doubt there are regs like that.
So when new guy gets on the job, they take an hour or two to walk through all the equipment and procedures, and then sign a form saying they've complied.

See if you actually cared about the problem you would be focusing your efforts on enforcing the regs as they exist and addressing the real causes of abuse.  But that would cost time, money and effort, whereas targeting an exemption that benefits an unpopular minority does not.  this is 1% science, 99% politics.

You are operating with a lot of pejorative assumption about secular humane slaughter. Apart from PETA exposés of abattoirs, what do you know about correctly conducted modern animal slaughter? It's a bit disingenuous of you to propose that because I can't stop all abuse I must suffer the legalization of abuse elsewhere. I wouldn't have expected you to take such a "continental" position.

It is an extremely untenable position yet for the sake of this argument it is swallowed whole. I have no doubt as to why.