Dutch Muslims & Jews united together

[Siege]

You at the office on the Sabbath?  tsk tsk.

I am the only jew in Languish that observe shabbat.
You should know that.

[Slargos]

You at the office on the Sabbath?  tsk tsk.

I am the only jew in Languish that observe shabbat.
You should know that.

What about on deployment? Are you allowed to kill Arabs on Shabbat?

[Viking]

You at the office on the Sabbath?  tsk tsk.

I am the only jew in Languish that observe shabbat.
You should know that.

What about on deployment? Are you allowed to kill Arabs on Shabbat?

Damn, beat me to it....

[Razgovory]

You at the office on the Sabbath?  tsk tsk.

I am the only jew in Languish that observe shabbat.
You should know that.

Yeah, I was joking.

[grumbler]

But the analogy doesn't hold because an expert in thte field raises several specific reasons why based on her extensive prior observations, there are good reasons to believe there may indeed be significant differences.  This can be only discounted by reversing the burden of proof. 

An expert in the field mentioned two differences (length of blade and sharpening method) and hypothesized why a longer blade may have made a difference and hypothesized without explanation that the lack of hand-sharpening (if there was a lack of hand-sharpening) "may have had an effect on pain."  She does not question the central results of the study, nor does she claim to have any scientific evidence that her hypotheses may be correct.  She calls for scientific exploration of her hypotheses.

The burden of proof remains on those who want to argue that some changes in the knife and (maybe) sharpening method would produce different results.

If your argument is that as a matter of public policy a study like this would be sufficient to support legislation (in the absence of other considerations like interference with free exercise) I would agree, because policy is often made based on evidence that is objectively weak or flawed from a scientific perspective.  But you seem to be making a stronger argument about this about the strength of this study's results as applied to a materially different context.

My argument is that the scientific evidence is that cows and lambs suffer more from slaughter without stunning than slaughter with stunning.  I make no recommendations for laws based on this.

What I find more interesting, actually, is the insistence of the ritual slaughter adherents that they must be excluded from the law on a religious basis, when an outsider would look at the religious issue in question and quickly conclude that the religious slaughter community is going to have a lot to answer for to their deity, given that they insist that the primary rationale of their method is to respect the animal and cause it no pain.  The trumpeting of those who argued that halal slaughter caused less pain than traditional slaughter has been silenced, as even Dr. Grandin agrees.  If, as they claimed when the evidence was on their side, those arguing for the halal exception to animal cruelty considered animal pain to be an important part of the discussion, the must now concede that the animal pain issue now calls for them to adopt pre-slaughter (or immediate post-cut) stunning - as indeed, many Muslims do.

But I think this is a debate for the religious committee in the short run.  In the longer run, legislatures will surely announce their intentions to abolish the exceptions for religious slaughter, and I hope those who want to retain the exception have in the meantime funded scientific research to validate one of Dr. Grandin's hypotheses - else there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth made worse by me telling them "I told you so!" 

[Duque de Bragança]

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?

Not too late to point out that you can get ninja throat slitting kills by rediscovering the good ol' matança do porco 

PS: seems nicer this way;)

[Siege]

You at the office on the Sabbath?  tsk tsk.

I am the only jew in Languish that observe shabbat.
You should know that.

What about on deployment? Are you allowed to kill Arabs on Shabbat?

Of course. War ain't violation of Shabbat.

[Siege]

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?

Not too late to point out that you can get ninja throat slitting kills by rediscovering old-fashioned matança do porco 

  So unkosher.

Funny how easy to understand is Portuguese.

[PDH]

You know, I have thought long and hard about this issues.  My conclusion is simple: since it is the Euroweenies who are all upset about this, the religious nuts must be correct.

[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?

Not too late to point out that you can get ninja throat slitting kills by rediscovering old-fashioned matança do porco 

my grand dad was a pig crastrator. Perhaps knife skills pass down through generations?

[Weijun]

Why is it that no one has mentioned that these laws are a flagrant violation of property rights?  Perhaps if public health is an issue (especially the spread of infectious disease), then there could be some justification for the government limiting what people do with their private property.  However, restricting property rights just because of the religious beliefs of Gaia worshipers and PETA fanatics is a completely unjustified assault on human rights. 

Whether the way I slaughter cattle is "humane" is no more the government's business than if I smash my TV because the home team lost.

[grumbler]

Why is it that no one has mentioned that these laws are a flagrant violation of property rights?  Perhaps if public health is an issue (especially the spread of infectious disease), then there could be some justification for the government limiting what people do with their private property.  However, restricting property rights just because of the religious beliefs of Gaia worshipers and PETA fanatics is a completely unjustified assault on human rights. 

Whether the way I slaughter cattle is "humane" is no more the government's business than if I smash my TV because the home team lost.

[Weijun]

Why is it that no one has mentioned that these laws are a flagrant violation of property rights?  Perhaps if public health is an issue (especially the spread of infectious disease), then there could be some justification for the government limiting what people do with their private property.  However, restricting property rights just because of the religious beliefs of Gaia worshipers and PETA fanatics is a completely unjustified assault on human rights. 

Whether the way I slaughter cattle is "humane" is no more the government's business than if I smash my TV because the home team lost.

Alright, try it a different way.  Why should the law treat animals as anything other than chattel property?  Is not all "animals rights" legislation necessarily religious (including secular religions) in intent?

[The Brain]

Is not all "animals rights" legislation necessarily religious (including secular religions) in intent?

This is easy to answer: no.

[LaCroix]

Why should the law treat animals as anything other than chattel property?

http://www.grandin.com/welfare/animals.are.not.things.html