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. 

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.

You might convince yourselves but others, not so much. But by all means keep doing it, it´ll keep me laughing. 

[Viking]

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.

*Like

It is within the scope of the responsibilities of government to make cruelty to animals illegal.

[The Brain]

This thread proves the vitality of Languish.

[The Minsky Moment]

Got a link to her scientific study?  The latest I see is an article from Feb 2010 that says, in part, "[t]here is a need to repeat this experiment with a Kosher knife and a skilled shochet who obeys all the Kosher rules for correct cutting." 

She notes some things that may have made the study invalid ("use of a shorter knife may possibly have had an effect on the painfulness of the cut," "it was impossible to observe behavioral reaction," "it was not possible to determine if the wound was held open during the cut") but that's not evidence, as she herself notes. 

A more recent scientific study would certainly justify your claim, but reference to her "Discussion of research..." comments does not, since she herself says it doesn't.

This is precisely backwards in terms of how the scientific method works.  You cannot presume a consequence follows causally without designing an experiment that controls for other identifiable possible causal factors.  The need for causal control can't be circumvented by saying that the alternative possible causes most be proven first before you need to control for them.

What you said earlier made more sense - that before concluded that a particular control is warranted, there first needs to be some reason to think that there could logically be some impact.  But that does not require formal proof.  It just requires positing a common sense reason to think failure to control could effect validity.  That is easily established here.  before the NZ study was ever conducted, Grandin had made observations of the negative effects of using the technique and tools in the study.  Without controlling for those effects, there is no way to know whether the EEG results occur because of the mere fact of severance or one or more of the other impacts that Grandin discusses.  The burden is not on Grandin to prove that these other impacts caused the results.  The burden is on those who would generalize the results of the Johnson study beyond their parameters that controlling for these impacts doesn't change the results.

[derspiess]

This thread proves the vitality of Languish.

I've skimmed a handful of pages but I'm still trying to figure out how this went to 30

I'd just about pay someone to summarize the thread & highlight the more entertaining posts.

[The Minsky Moment]

I don't know if you really understand this, but Johnson shows that the animal continues to feel pain long after the advocates of halal and kosher slaughter have claimed the animal stops feeling pain. You are arguing the difference between cutting the throat with one clean cut and a less optimal cut. Johnson's work shows that the animal continues to feel pain long after the difference between one clean cut and a sloppy cutting job a ceased to matter.

I'll try one more time.

What Johnson's study shows is that animals subjected to the protocol in the study exhibited higher levels of certain EEG frequency responses than animals who were stunned.  That's it.

The question is what conclusions can be drawn from the fact.  One conclusion that can be drawn is that slaughtering animals using the NZ test protocol (which no hallal or kosher shochet does) likely causes some incrementally positive level of pain for whatever period the animal is conscious and able to sense pain.

The next question is whether that conclusion can be generalized to a broader conclusion that *any* protocol involving severing the throat causes the higher pain levels.  In order to reach that conclusion, one has to eliminate any other plausible causes of the EEG results other than the mere fact of the severance.  But in fact there are other plausible (albeit no proven) causes.  Ergo, one can not draw the broader conclusion without first designing a study that controls for those plausible causes.

[Neil]

Given that religious belief has no truth in it, there is no reason to ascribe any value to it.

And that is why you fail.

[The Brain]

This thread proves the vitality of Languish.

I've skimmed a handful of pages but I'm still trying to figure out how this went to 30

I'd just about pay someone to summarize the thread & highlight the more entertaining posts.

The Nazis got sidetracked into a long discussion of the scientific method when the Jews had already given away that their "religion" is all 'bout the money ("oh noes some kosher shops will close").

[Viking]

Joan, you seem to think that there is some magical effect of having the magic rabbi ninja cut the throat of the animal. As if you only used the right skill and the right knife then the animal would feel no pain. No such phenomena has been demonstrated and there is no reason, apart from defending ritual animal torture, to doubt that. The increased EEG effect is highly relevant primarily because the main argument for ritual animal torture is that it is not painful. It very much is painful.

Scientific experiments remove human factors if possible and performs double blinding if not possible. The Johnson study does not test kosher or halal, it tests the beasts reaction to having it's throat slit.

[The Minsky Moment]

The Johnson study does not test kosher or halal, it tests the beasts reaction to having it's throat slit.

Bingo.
And Grandin's point is that there are multiple things that can happen when a throat is slit that could be causing pain, and the Johnson study does not separate out these factors, only one of which would apply to kosher slaughter.

[Viking]

The Johnson study does not test kosher or halal, it tests the beasts reaction to having it's throat slit.

Bingo.
And Grandin's point is that there are multiple things that can happen when a throat is slit that could be causing pain, and the Johnson study does not separate out these factors, only one of which would apply to kosher slaughter.

One is enough to cause the pain. But, I encourage you to make the case that one kind of knife cut does not cause pain while the other one does.

[grumbler]

This is precisely backwards in terms of how the scientific method works.  You cannot presume a consequence follows causally without designing an experiment that controls for other identifiable possible causal factors.  The need for causal control can't be circumvented by saying that the alternative possible causes most be proven first before you need to control for them.

I don't think you understand how science works, if you think that doubt (even expert doubt) neutralizes scientific study and makes further scientific study unnecessary.  The assertion that knife size is significant is merely an assertion.  It needs actual study under scientific conditions to make it a scientifically-demonstrated effect.   Dr. Grandin is correct, and you are not.

What you said earlier made more sense - that before concluded that a particular control is warranted, there first needs to be some reason to think that there could logically be some impact.  But that does not require formal proof.  It just requires positing a common sense reason to think failure to control could effect validity.  That is easily established here.  before the NZ study was ever conducted, Grandin had made observations of the negative effects of using the technique and tools in the study.  Without controlling for those effects, there is no way to know whether the EEG results occur because of the mere fact of severance or one or more of the other impacts that Grandin discusses.  The burden is not on Grandin to prove that these other impacts caused the results.  The burden is on those who would generalize the results of the Johnson study beyond their parameters that controlling for these impacts doesn't change the results.

Dr. Grandin disagrees.  She argues that further scientific study is needed.  I agree.  In the absence of such study, the NZ results cannot be dismissed, even if they may not have used the exact same knife as Dr. Grandin observed being used (i.e. the one "similar to many of the knives the author has observed being used for halal slaughter").  She offers no scientific evidence that the knife length makes a difference, merely the supposition that it does.  Muslims, obviously, would differ on this.

Dr. Grandin concedes readily that "[t]he results of this study clearly show that the use of a knife with a 24.5 cm long blade definitely causes pain."  Thus, banning halal slaughtering (even if allowing kosher slaughtering) would seem to be proper, even by Dr. Grandin's standards.

What is unknown is whether kosher slaughtering should be allowed.  Further scientific study would seem to be called for.  In the mean time, though, I would argue that the ball is in the court of those who would justify the exception.

I have no dog in this fight, and little prior knowledge.  I can only base my opinions on what has been presented and what is available on the internet. 

[Camerus]

Heh, this thread is a good example of how people simply rationalize and explain things based on their own prejudices and sense of identity.

- Dutch lawmakers claiming this law isn't about religious discrimination at all.
- Malthus and MM claiming they don't identify with Orthodox Jews here because M&MM don't keep kosher.
- Viking claiming he doesn't hate religion.
- Martinus claiming how he is also motivated by his love for animal rights, where he himself has gone on about how he loves foie gras.
Etc...

Anyway, unconvincing denials of lack of self-identification notwithstanding, I have to say I am with the Jewish Cabal on this one.

[garbon]

Anyway, unconvincing denials of lack of self-identification notwithstanding, I have to say I am with the Jewish Cabal on this one.

I still don't get this position. If the law is "baseless" enough to allow for exemptions, perhaps everyone should get those same exemptions. What's so exceptional about the halal slaughter ritual that if divorced from a religious context, it should be banned but allowed if it keeps the religious element?

[The Brain]

Heh, this thread is a good example of how people simply rationalize and explain things based on their own prejudices and sense of identity.

- Dutch lawmakers claiming this law isn't about religious discrimination at all.
- Malthus and MM claiming they don't identify with Orthodox Jews here because M&MM don't keep kosher.
- Viking claiming he doesn't hate religion.
- Martinus claiming how he is also motivated by his love for animal rights, where he himself has gone on about how he loves foie gras.
Etc...

Anyway, unconvincing denials of lack of self-identification notwithstanding, I have to say I am with the Jewish Cabal on this one.

As usual I am both the voice of reason and ignored.