Dutch Muslims & Jews united together

[Cecil]

After reading this clusterfuck of a thread I´d like to thank the resident jews of this forum. You have provided much hilarity at your own expense. 

[viper37]

Stunned animals are also alive as they get carved up.  

Simply put, no.

The animal is first stunned, than either electrocuted again for the kill or has the throat slit.  Actually, the whole process takes a second or two more than needed to club a seal.

The animal does not suffer, aside from being killed, compared to slitting its throat while he's fully alive, conscious and hanging from its feet.

[Neil]

After reading this clusterfuck of a thread I´d like to thank the resident jews of this forum. You have provided much hilarity at your own expense. 

Go away, Jew-hater.

[dps]

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?

This is argument by assertion.  How is it unacceptably damaged? 

The animals are fucking being killed.  Of course their well-being is damaged--can't get much more damaged than that.

And if you think that's unacceptable, become a vegetarian. 

Otherwise, I fail to see how you can even hold the well-being of the animal as an issue.  The issue to me isn't how "humane" a slaughter is--by it's very nature, it's extremely inhumane.  The issue is the quality of the end product.

[Viking]

The animals are fucking being killed.  Of course their well-being is damaged--can't get much more damaged than that.

And if you think that's unacceptable, become a vegetarian. 

Otherwise, I fail to see how you can even hold the well-being of the animal as an issue.  The issue to me isn't how "humane" a slaughter is--by it's very nature, it's extremely inhumane.  The issue is the quality of the end product.

I have no problems eating animals and enjoying the pleasure of consuming their flesh. I'm just going to insist that the animals which I eat are treated well while alive.

[dps]

I don't think you would care if they were doing it for non-religious reasons.

Trust in my honesty or not. I would still care if it was done for non-religious reasons. The difference would be is that I would not have to stand up to people who shamelessly were willing to happily torture animals because they thought god wanted it and were happy to lie to justify their arguments as well as the Languishites here, who, in the words of Dan Dennet believe in religion and are willing to fight for the delusions of others.

Well, at least you're honest about being in opposition to those willing to fight for the rights of others.

[Viking]

I don't think you would care if they were doing it for non-religious reasons.

Trust in my honesty or not. I would still care if it was done for non-religious reasons. The difference would be is that I would not have to stand up to people who shamelessly were willing to happily torture animals because they thought god wanted it and were happy to lie to justify their arguments as well as the Languishites here, who, in the words of Dan Dennet believe in religion and are willing to fight for the delusions of others.

Well, at least you're honest about being in opposition to those willing to fight for the rights of others.

I don't consider there to be a right to torture animals.

[dps]

The animals are fucking being killed.  Of course their well-being is damaged--can't get much more damaged than that.

And if you think that's unacceptable, become a vegetarian. 

Otherwise, I fail to see how you can even hold the well-being of the animal as an issue.  The issue to me isn't how "humane" a slaughter is--by it's very nature, it's extremely inhumane.  The issue is the quality of the end product.

I have no problems eating animals and enjoying the pleasure of consuming their flesh. I'm just going to insist that the animals which I eat are treated well while alive.

Why?  You keep using the word "torture", but we're not talking about some sick fuck gouging out a puppy's eye with a stick or breaking a birds wings and laughing as it tries to fly.  We're talking about something being done that solely in our interest and totally contrary to the interest of the animal, no matter what method is employed.

[Slargos]

Why?  You keep using the word "torture", but we're not talking about some sick fuck gouging out a puppy's eye with a stick or breaking a birds wings and laughing as it tries to fly.  We're talking about something being done that solely in our interest and totally contrary to the interest of the animal, no matter what method is employed.

What's the problem with gouging out the eyes of puppies anyway? I need nutrition, sure, but I also need entertainment.

[Viking]

Why?  You keep using the word "torture", but we're not talking about some sick fuck gouging out a puppy's eye with a stick or breaking a birds wings and laughing as it tries to fly.  We're talking about something being done that solely in our interest and totally contrary to the interest of the animal, no matter what method is employed.

It's torture because it is unnecessary. We can get the sweet juicy steaks and joints without causing the animal significant pain.

[Barrister]

I don't think you would care if they were doing it for non-religious reasons.

Trust in my honesty or not. I would still care if it was done for non-religious reasons. The difference would be is that I would not have to stand up to people who shamelessly were willing to happily torture animals because they thought god wanted it and were happy to lie to justify their arguments as well as the Languishites here, who, in the words of Dan Dennet believe in religion and are willing to fight for the delusions of others.

Well, at least you're honest about being in opposition to those willing to fight for the rights of others.

Viking has always been very consistent.  He is a 'militant' atheist.  He sees no value in religious thought or belief, does not respect those who do so believe, and does not think there is any duty to do even the slightest action to acomodate the religious beliefs of others.

[Neil]

I don't think you would care if they were doing it for non-religious reasons.

Trust in my honesty or not. I would still care if it was done for non-religious reasons. The difference would be is that I would not have to stand up to people who shamelessly were willing to happily torture animals because they thought god wanted it and were happy to lie to justify their arguments as well as the Languishites here, who, in the words of Dan Dennet believe in religion and are willing to fight for the delusions of others.

Well, at least you're honest about being in opposition to those willing to fight for the rights of others.

Viking has always been very consistent.  He is a 'militant' atheist.  He sees no value in religious thought or belief, does not respect those who do so believe, and does not think there is any duty to do even the slightest action to acomodate the religious beliefs of others.

He's not living up to our end of the truce.  We're supposed to accomodate these harmless sorts of rituals and beliefs, and religious people aren't supposed to burn us at the stake anymore.  He hasn't been burned at the stake, so I find his stance in this utterly inexplicable.

[Razgovory]

After reading this clusterfuck of a thread I´d like to thank the resident jews of this forum. You have provided much hilarity at your own expense. 

Funny thing is, nobody on this board who is arguing against such a law is kosher keeping Jew.  Though I believe we all are arguing for the same reason:  That the use of state power to harass a religious minority is not a good use of state power.

[Slargos]

After reading this clusterfuck of a thread I´d like to thank the resident jews of this forum. You have provided much hilarity at your own expense. 

Funny thing is, nobody on this board who is arguing against such a law is kosher keeping Jew.  Though I believe we all are arguing for the same reason:  That the use of state power to harass a religious minority is not a good use of state power.

While I am all for abusing religious minorities, I completely agree that it is not "right" to do so. However, I really don't think the point of this is abuse. It's already been made clear that the behaviour can continue if they agree to stun the animals first.

[Viking]

Viking has always been very consistent.

Yes I have.

He is a 'militant' atheist.

Depending on your definitions, but close enough. I prefer Resolute Sceptic. Atheist is really a meaningless term. I am also an Afaeryist, a Non-Stampcollector, a Non-Winedrinker, a Non-Smoker. I prefer to define myself based on what I am, not what I don't believe. I'm an Empricist, Utilitarian, Modernist and a Materialist.

He sees no value in religious thought or belief,

I agree. Given that religious belief has no truth in it, there is no reason to ascribe any value to it. I think flawed assumptions lead to flawed conclusions, so it follows that I see no value in any conclusions that presume that god exists or has some nature.

does not respect those who do so believe, and does not think there is any duty to do even the slightest action to acomodate the religious beliefs of others.

I do not respect people and the thoughts of people who claim knowledge can come from lack of knowledge. I think that all men and women are citizens and have equal rights before the law. People are free to make their own choices but they are not entitled to insist on making choices for me based on their religious nonsense. The only duty civilized men have to religious men is to protect them and ourselves from religious compulsion and intimidation.

The very idea that your baseless dogma should give you a right to torture animals is simply unacceptable.