Dutch Muslims & Jews united together

[grumbler]

That's not true. That's not the extent of the issue in the Netherlands or as discussed here.  I suppose that is the extent of the issue for some participants but certainly not all.

That's not true.  No one except perhaps some of those directly involved would support ritual slaughter if it was genuinely thought to be cruel.  Some people wave the antisemite flag, but I dismiss that kind of demagoguery. 

[garbon]

That's not true. That's not the extent of the issue in the Netherlands or as discussed here.  I suppose that is the extent of the issue for some participants but certainly not all.

That's not true.  No one except perhaps some of those directly involved would support ritual slaughter if it was genuinely thought to be cruel.  Some people wave the antisemite flag, but I dismiss that kind of demagoguery. 

Okay but the issue is still more complex than simply is it cruel? There's also the vein about whether or not exceptions should be made for religious groups. After all, I'm of the opinion that if it wasn't cruel and the muslim/jewish exemption should stand - then really the law should be overturned.

[grumbler]

Okay but the issue is still more complex than simply is it cruel? There's also the vein about whether or not exceptions should be made for religious groups. After all, I'm of the opinion that if it wasn't cruel and the muslim/jewish exemption should stand - then really the law should be overturned.

I am of the opinion that the exemption to stunning for any alternative method of slaughter (and not just for Jews and Muslims specifically, because that is absurd) can only be justified if the alternative is not so additionally cruel that the state can tolerate it, just as it tolerates the failures of industrial slaughter to properly stun the animals.  But I think the demonstration of the acceptability of the  alternatives need to be based in science, not merely on a claim of special religious privileges based on tradition.

"Is it cruel" is almost a meaningless question.  All methods of raising, transporting, and slaughtering involve an element of "cruelty."

[LaCroix]

Animals feel pain: so what?  That does not make them moral agents, unless you make assumptions about morality that only a religious system can provide.  I don't care if it is Catholicism, Marxism, or Environmentalism, these are all religious groups trying to impose their values on society.

Yes, there are animal welfare laws.  However, they are no less religious in intent than sodomy laws or a myriad of assorted blue laws.

that only a religious system can provide... 

maybe it is unclear to you why many individuals are against cruelty to animals, but denouncing them as having fallen sway to a religion because they do want to see an animal beaten to death is ridiculous

according to what you are saying, we should treat them as tools regardless of whether they feel pain or not simply because they are not "moral agents". this sort of immature close-mindedness reminds me of rand. first, let's ignore the obvious problem to your rationale--whereby morale agency is apparently of supreme importance and the non-morale agents are damned to hell (retardism? infancy? i assume you were just being lazy in your terminology, but perhaps you really think the mentally unfit should be treated as tools).

the problem with your assertion that religion is the reason for animal cruelty laws is that many people empathize with animals regardless of any religious indoctrination. it is natural for some, if not for you. some even find they are more empathic around animals than humans; this is how their minds work and it is not through external influence that creates it. peta may be a religion, but a child befriending a dog is not

if anything, i would think religion spurred animal cruelty more than anything with its obsession with the soul, selfishly attributed to only the human race

[Neil]

Animal cruelty laws are the product of the anthropomorphization of animals coupled with our alienation from our food supply.

[garbon]

"Is it cruel" is almost a meaningless question.  All methods of raising, transporting, and slaughtering involve an element of "cruelty."

You're the one who raised that.

The entire issue is "is halal or kosher butchering cruel?"

[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 old-fashioned matança do porco 

  So unkosher.

Funny how easy to understand is Portuguese.

You still know some Judeo-Castilian, right ? It's closer to Portuguese than modern Castilian but most importantly you're dealing here with written Portuguese.

[Weijun]

Animals feel pain: so what?  That does not make them moral agents, unless you make assumptions about morality that only a religious system can provide.  I don't care if it is Catholicism, Marxism, or Environmentalism, these are all religious groups trying to impose their values on society.

Yes, there are animal welfare laws.  However, they are no less religious in intent than sodomy laws or a myriad of assorted blue laws.

that only a religious system can provide... 

maybe it is unclear to you why many individuals are against cruelty to animals, but denouncing them as having fallen sway to a religion because they do want to see an animal beaten to death is ridiculous

according to what you are saying, we should treat them as tools regardless of whether they feel pain or not simply because they are not "moral agents". this sort of immature close-mindedness reminds me of rand. first, let's ignore the obvious problem to your rationale--whereby morale agency is apparently of supreme importance and the non-morale agents are damned to hell (retardism? infancy? i assume you were just being lazy in your terminology, but perhaps you really think the mentally unfit should be treated as tools).

the problem with your assertion that religion is the reason for animal cruelty laws is that many people empathize with animals regardless of any religious indoctrination. it is natural for some, if not for you. some even find they are more empathic around animals than humans; this is how their minds work and it is not through external influence that creates it. peta may be a religion, but a child befriending a dog is not

if anything, i would think religion spurred animal cruelty more than anything with its obsession with the soul, selfishly attributed to only the human race

I think you miss my point.  Animal cruelty laws criminalize behavior that does no harm to people but that many people (perhaps even most) find immoral.  This is no different from sodomy laws or other blue laws.  The only motivation for criminalizing such behavior is the moral outrage of unaffected parties.  That their moral and ritual system has been violated is a religious issue.

[Razgovory]

I'm a bit surprised this thread died on this note.

[Slargos]

The children will eventually scream themselves out of breath and fall asleep.

[LaCroix]

I think you miss my point.  Animal cruelty laws criminalize behavior that does no harm to people but that many people (perhaps even most) find immoral.  This is no different from sodomy laws or other blue laws.  The only motivation for criminalizing such behavior is the moral outrage of unaffected parties.  That their moral and ritual system has been violated is a religious issue.

i don't think i did, since you're still going on about this. comparing animal cruelty laws with blue laws is silly because they are apples and oranges. one deals with restricting behavior strictly between humans for reasons based on past restriction. the other involves interfering with how one species interacts another, weaker species. your sodomy laws developed because man did not want man to bugger other men. we have animal cruelty laws not to enforce historical coddling of animals but to change how we treat them. i could go on, but i'll stop here

their purposes are not comparable, and it is a little disingenuous of you to try and link them together

[Slargos]

Don't be silly, it's the Languish way. 

[garbon]

Can't CdM slap Weijun for insinuating that one should be able to treat cats however they'd like?

[grumbler]

i don't think i did, since you're still going on about this. comparing animal cruelty laws with blue laws is silly because they are apples and oranges. one deals with restricting behavior strictly between humans for reasons based on past restriction. the other involves interfering with how one species interacts another, weaker species. your sodomy laws developed because man did not want man to bugger other men. we have animal cruelty laws not to enforce historical coddling of animals but to change how we treat them. i could go on, but i'll stop here

their purposes are not comparable, and it is a little disingenuous of you to try and link them together

The key with the upwards arrow and the word "shift" that is to the left of the "z" key has a purpose.  Please learn it and practice using the key here.  kthxbye 

[Neil]

Can't CdM slap Weijun for insinuating that one should be able to treat cats however they'd like?

Nope.