Dutch Muslims & Jews united together

[The Minsky Moment]

I've read it through a fourth time.  It says nothing about pain due to "loss of blood."  It says the shorter knife is more painful because the point tends to catch on the wound and gouge it, and that the risk of the wound closing over the knife is greater.  It also says that the method used to sharpen differed, with the implication that a blunter knife could be more painful.

The simple fact is that if you want to test the effects of kosher slaughter then you need to conduct the test on someone who is trained in that technique, and employing the equipment and protocols actually used in that technique.  This study did not do that and hence is not scientific evidence of the effects of kosher slaughter.  Apples don't become oranges just because both are fruit.

[Razgovory]

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

It wasn't in the Off-topic thread.  Besides, I think it expresses your views quite well.

[Viking]

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

It wasn't in the Off-topic thread.  Besides, I think it expresses your views quite well.

it was off topic to this thread

[Razgovory]

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

It wasn't in the Off-topic thread.  Besides, I think it expresses your views quite well.

it was off topic to this thread

You agree with the sentiment correct?

[The Minsky Moment]

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.

Normally, someone wanting to tackle abuse X focuses on the most serious manifestations of that abuse and addresses those first.  When one instead focuses on what objectively appears as one of the least serious manifestations of the abuse -- to the point where many question if it is a problem at all -- it raises legitimate questions as to motives.

For example, the quality of public education is a serious problem in the US.  There are many possible ways in which that problem can be addressed.  But if someone were to propose as a priority the elimination of the Amish exemption from compulsory education on the grounds that they are being taught too much about barn construction and too little about contemporary English literature, I might question whether concerns over national education quality were really at issue.

[Viking]

I've read it through a fourth time.  It says nothing about pain due to "loss of blood."  It says the shorter knife is more painful because the point tends to catch on the wound and gouge it, and that the risk of the wound closing over the knife is greater.  It also says that the method used to sharpen differed, with the implication that a blunter knife could be more painful.

The simple fact is that if you want to test the effects of kosher slaughter then you need to conduct the test on someone who is trained in that technique, and employing the equipment and protocols actually used in that technique.  This study did not do that and hence is not scientific evidence of the effects of kosher slaughter.  Apples don't become oranges just because both are fruit.

Yet, this is not what the Johnson study was measuring, not to mention that the Johnson study did conclude that the pain was due to nerves being cut.

If you want to study the effects of kosher slaughter you first define explicitly what kosher slaughter is and devise a test protocol which is consistent with that definition. You do NOT let a biased Ninja Rabbi slaughter the animal to add a source of uncertainty to the study. This is special pleading.

[Viking]

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

It wasn't in the Off-topic thread.  Besides, I think it expresses your views quite well.

it was off topic to this thread

You agree with the sentiment correct?

Yes I do. How does that excuse you from actually dealing with my arguments rather than impuning my motives? So what if I hate religion. I'm not arguing that religion is bad, I'm arguing that Religion is not a sufficient reason to excuse animal cruelty.

[The Minsky Moment]

If you want to study the effects of kosher slaughter you first define explicitly what kosher slaughter is and devise a test protocol which is consistent with that definition. You do NOT let a biased Ninja Rabbi slaughter the animal to add a source of uncertainty to the study. This is special pleading.

How on earth does the "bias" of the rabbi effect the EEG result! 
Maybe you think these guys really are ninja and can control the electric outpute from cow brains . . .

The argument that you draw conclusions about protocol X by testing wholly different protcol Y is unsound.  It's like testing an experimental drug by conducting clinical trials with a different drug on the theory that using the actual drug you want to bring to market, you would "bias" the test results.

[The Brain]

My post wasn't off-topic. Religious people are inferior.

One of the problems with legal exemptions for religions is that they are based on pure fantasy. Accepting pure fantasy as a good basis for exemptions is mocking legitimate concerns and cheapens the lawmaking of the state.

[HVC]

The one thing this thread makes clear (besides the canadian moral superiority that i mentioned earlier) is that i really want to be a ninja rabbi. Guess first i gotta become a jew first. does adult circumcision hurt a lot?

[Viking]

Normally, someone wanting to tackle abuse X focuses on the most serious manifestations of that abuse and addresses those first.  When one instead focuses on what objectively appears as one of the least serious manifestations of the abuse -- to the point where many question if it is a problem at all -- it raises legitimate questions as to motives.

For example, the quality of public education is a serious problem in the US.  There are many possible ways in which that problem can be addressed.  But if someone were to propose as a priority the elimination of the Amish exemption from compulsory education on the grounds that they are being taught too much about barn construction and too little about contemporary English literature, I might question whether concerns over national education quality were really at issue.

I'm spending my tax money to fund the norwegian govenrment's efforts to stamp out and prevent animal cruelty. I receive reports from NGO's focussed on animal welfare that report that these efforts are mostly successful and is progressing the right direction.

My elected representatives have never given exemption to animal welfare laws for religious reasons. I think that animal cruelty should not be mad legal. Your suggestion that I am not dealing with the most serious problem first is untrue, I don't have to abolish the exemption here. I want to permit the dutch (and other) government(s) to act against religious motivated animal cruelty in addition to animal cruelty motivated by sadism and pecuniary reasons. 

[Razgovory]

The one thing this thread makes clear (besides the canadian moral superiority that i mentioned earlier) is that i really want to be a ninja rabbi. Guess first i gotta become a jew first. does adult circumcision hurt a lot?

Falls under inhumane slaughter.  You have to go through a "secular" circumcision.  With a captive bolt.

[HVC]

The one thing this thread makes clear (besides the canadian moral superiority that i mentioned earlier) is that i really want to be a ninja rabbi. Guess first i gotta become a jew first. does adult circumcision hurt a lot?

Falls under inhumane slaughter.  You have to go through a "secular" circumcision.  With a captive bolt.

will if i'm already messing up my junk i gess getting a prince albert wouldn't hurt.

[Viking]

If you want to study the effects of kosher slaughter you first define explicitly what kosher slaughter is and devise a test protocol which is consistent with that definition. You do NOT let a biased Ninja Rabbi slaughter the animal to add a source of uncertainty to the study. This is special pleading.

How on earth does the "bias" of the rabbi effect the EEG result! 
Maybe you think these guys really are ninja and can control the electric outpute from cow brains . . .

The argument that you draw conclusions about protocol X by testing wholly different protcol Y is unsound.  It's like testing an experimental drug by conducting clinical trials with a different drug on the theory that using the actual drug you want to bring to market, you would "bias" the test results.

The point of the scientific method is that I don't have to figure out what bias the Ninja Rabbi effect might introduce.

That drug analogy you use is fallacious. Human factors must be removed from testing. Basically, your argument is that the Ninja Rabbi skills could make the difference, not all Rabbi are Ninja's. The study is not about comparing best practice vs best practice, but rather explicitly defined practice vs explicitly defined practice. The point is that you could repeat "your protocol" against with a "less than Ninja" Rabbi and get the opposite result to the one with the Ninja Rabbi. 

[Viking]

The one thing this thread makes clear (besides the canadian moral superiority that i mentioned earlier) is that i really want to be a ninja rabbi. Guess first i gotta become a jew first. does adult circumcision hurt a lot?

I was operated for a constricted foreskin, so YES. I cried myself to sleep for a week.