http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iCQQfAstC3OQb8W79K-0e9paUguw?docId=CNG.ff27a988577bda8bd589a28ab29087cb.221]Click here for text (//http://)
Quote
THE HAGUE — Jewish and Muslim representatives Thursday appealed to Dutch lawmakers not to enforce plans requiring animals to be stunned before halaal and kosher slaughtering rituals.
"We are against any form of stunning because it's against our religion," Yusuf Altuntas, president of the CMO -- an organisation that links the Muslim community with the Dutch government -- told a parliamentary commission.
"One of the first measures taken during the Occupation (during World War II) was the closing of kosher abattoirs," Dutch Chief Rabbi Binyomin Jacobs added during the debate in The Hague.
Dutch law required animals to be stunned before being slaughtered but made an exception for ritual halaal and kosher slaughters.
The country's Party for Animals (PvdD) which holds two seats in the 150-seat Dutch parliament, has submitted a proposal, if implemented, would see this exception abolished.
Dutch media widely reported that the PvdD's proposal was expected to get a majority nod from parliamentarians, but a timeframe was not given.
"The animals suffer more and are more distressed if they are not stunned," Esther Ouwehand, a PvdD parliamentarian told AFP.
"By getting this modification in the law, we hope to inspire other countries," she added, pointing out that in Norway and Sweden these measures had already been taken.
More than two million animals -- mainly sheep and chickens -- were being subjected to ritual slaughter every year in the Netherlands, the PvdD added.
Abdelfattah Ali-Salah, director of Halal Correct, the organisation which issues halaal certificates in the country, however called the figure "inexact".
He said some 250,000 animals were slaughtered yearly without being stunned beforehand.
Jewish and Muslim representatives Thursday insisted ritual slaughter respected the animals' welfare, notably restriction methods used to limit suffering and that those slaughtering received expert training.
"If we no longer have people who can do ritual slaughter in the Netherlands, we will stop eating meat," Chief Rabbi Jacobs said.
They did however offer to implement some measures which they said would ease the animals' suffering, especially better controls in abattoirs where ritual slaughters were performed and an improvement in conditions under which animals were being transported.
Several organisations in France, among them the Brigitte Bardot Foundation, in January launched a poster campaign, reporting conditions in which animals were killed during ritual slaughter.
If this succeed, can both Muslim & Jews cast a fatwa on Bardot?
Banning the production AND import of halal meat [and actually following through with reprizals], in conjunction with the banning of circumsicion is a good first "soft" step to get rid of the undesireables. :hmm:
Quote"We are against any form of stunning because it's against our religion,"
Pussy. Why ever stand up for your opinions? Classy to push your religion in front of the bus.
Quote from: Slargos on June 16, 2011, 03:22:15 PM
Banning the production AND import of halal meat [and actually following through with reprizals], in conjunction with the banning of circumsicion is a good first "soft" step to get rid of the undesireables. :hmm:
Don't understand. How does that get help rid of the PvdD?
Meh, halal is dumb anyway. Maybe a few hundred years ago slitting an animal's throat was the most humane way to kill it but we've came a long way baby....
Is gassing kosher?
Yes, your silly ancient desert fairy tale tells you to torture animals. Your non-existent god is a sadist, I get that. You want me to respect your war criminal torturist paedophile murderer rapist bandit thief of a prophet, I get that. I'm sorry, but fuck you.
Reality > Religion
They should tell the (mostly Muslims, as there are very few Jews left in the Netherlands after that whole Hitler deal) to go fuck themselves and leave if they don't like it. "Freedom of religion" doesn't include the "freedom" to torture animals.
Quote from: Tyr on June 16, 2011, 03:42:45 PM
Meh, halal is dumb anyway. Maybe a few hundred years ago slitting an animal's throat was the most humane way to kill it but we've came a long way baby....
No. Halal/Kosher slaughter wasn't even the most human method of doing it in the bronze age. The animal is alive while it bleeds to death. The blood must exit the body for religious purity reasons.
Quote from: JonasSalk on June 16, 2011, 03:48:46 PM
Reality > Religion
They should tell the (mostly Muslims, as there are very few Jews left in the Netherlands after that whole Hitler deal) to go fuck themselves and leave if they don't like it. "Freedom of religion" doesn't include the "freedom" to torture animals.
I agree, freedom of religion is the freedom to want to torture animals, not he freedom to actually torture animals.
Quote"One of the first measures taken during the Occupation (during World War II) was the closing of kosher abattoirs,"
What is it about this that brings out all the crazies? Hitler apologists is the last thing we need.
Quote from: The Brain on June 16, 2011, 03:50:33 PM
Quote"One of the first measures taken during the Occupation (during World War II) was the closing of kosher abattoirs,"
What is it about this that brings out all the crazies? Hitler apologists is the last thing we need.
I also appreciate the Hitlerite program for roadbuilding which was copied by Eisenhower two decades later as presiden
Humane slaughter = contradiction in terms.
If the fake Krauts really gave a crap about animals they would become vegetarians and ban meat sales. But that would piss off the majority. Scapegoating the minority, though . . .
Quote from: Viking on June 16, 2011, 03:49:22 PM
o. Halal/Kosher slaughter wasn't even the most human method of doing it in the bronze age. The animal is alive while it bleeds to death.
Stunned animals are also alive as they get carved up. :contract:
Difference is that at least with kosher/hallal slaughter there has to be someone with proper training and experience and thus the risk of unecessary pain and suffering is limited. Whereas any unskilled doofus can get a job as a stunner in a slaughterhouse.
Good. If you want to practice your barbaric, bronze age customs, fuck off to the Middle East.
Freedom of religion should mean a freedom to freely profess the belief in whatever deity you choose. It should NEVER mean benefiting from exceptions when it comes to "mundane" laws.
If you can't live your goddamn life without wearing a retarded rag on/over your head, mutilating babies or torturing animals, then get the fuck out of Europe or go to prison.
Quote from: Slargos on June 16, 2011, 03:22:15 PM
Banning the production AND import of halal meat [and actually following through with reprizals], in conjunction with the banning of circumsicion is a good first "soft" step to get rid of the undesireables. :hmm:
Agreed.
Quote from: Martinus on June 16, 2011, 04:20:32 PM
Good. If you want to practice your barbaric, bronze age customs, fuck off to the Middle East.
Freedom of religion should mean a freedom to freely profess the belief in whatever deity you choose. It should NEVER mean benefiting from exceptions when it comes to "mundane" laws.
If you can't live your goddamn life without wearing a retarded rag on/over your head, mutilating babies or torturing animals, then get the fuck out of Europe or go to prison.
Well reasoned. Way to show those religious zealots the error of their prejudices.
So is medical testing on animals next?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 16, 2011, 04:25:43 PM
So is medical testing on animals next?
Only for researching cures for Tay Sachs.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 16, 2011, 04:19:44 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 16, 2011, 03:49:22 PM
o. Halal/Kosher slaughter wasn't even the most human method of doing it in the bronze age. The animal is alive while it bleeds to death.
Stunned animals are also alive as they get carved up. :contract:
Difference is that at least with kosher/hallal slaughter there has to be someone with proper training and experience and thus the risk of unecessary pain and suffering is limited. Whereas any unskilled doofus can get a job as a stunner in a slaughterhouse.
good point, let me rephrase
"The animal is awake while it bleeds to death."
The unskilled doofus still is much more humane than the highly trained knifeman that lets the animal exsanguinate until the heart tries to pump air.
Quote from: Jacob on June 16, 2011, 04:28:13 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 16, 2011, 04:21:59 PMAgreed.
You and Slargos do have a lot in common.
Why do you always have to be so mean? Every time we reach some sort of cordial unspoken agreement of non-aggression you have to resort to your dick-punching ways. :(
Quote from: Jacob on June 16, 2011, 04:28:13 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 16, 2011, 04:21:59 PMAgreed.
You and Slargos do have a lot in common.
We don't like retards who follow bronze age customs in the 21st century. Yes.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 16, 2011, 04:15:39 PM
Humane slaughter = contradiction in terms.
If the fake Krauts really gave a crap about animals they would become vegetarians and ban meat sales. But that would piss off the majority. Scapegoating the minority, though . . .
so, you are trying to argue that being tortured to death is equivalent to a (near) painless death? Can you name that logical fallacy? Is it "The Red Herring"? Tell me, your usually good at identifying them.
Besides, Europeans did not go to all that trouble to discover a distant (and relatively sparsely populated) land, cause all religious crazies to go there, transport a lot of blacks there, and scare enough Jews to move there, now to have all these people crawl back. :ph34r:
Quote from: Martinus on June 16, 2011, 04:32:13 PM
Besides, Europeans did not go to all that trouble to discover a distant (and relatively sparsely populated) land, cause all religious crazies to go there, transport a lot of blacks there, and scare enough Jews to move there, now to have all these people crawl back. :ph34r:
Fo dam sho yo
Quote from: Martinus on June 16, 2011, 04:30:51 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 16, 2011, 04:28:13 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 16, 2011, 04:21:59 PMAgreed.
You and Slargos do have a lot in common.
We don't like retards who follow bronze age customs in the 21st century. Yes.
3rd Century BC greece was bronze age :contract:
Quote from: Slargos on June 16, 2011, 04:30:37 PMWhy do you always have to be so mean? Every time we reach some sort of cordial unspoken agreement of non-aggression you have to resort to your dick-punching ways. :(
I apologize. In this case you were collateral damage :(
Quote from: Viking on June 16, 2011, 04:31:33 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 16, 2011, 04:15:39 PM
Humane slaughter = contradiction in terms.
If the fake Krauts really gave a crap about animals they would become vegetarians and ban meat sales. But that would piss off the majority. Scapegoating the minority, though . . .
so, you are trying to argue that being tortured to death is equivalent to a (near) painless death? Can you name that logical fallacy? Is it "The Red Herring"? Tell me, your usually good at identifying them.
It's called "being Jewish". Malthus has it too. It shuts off the rational part of the brain when it comes to anything remotely related to Israel or Judaism (I admittedly have it when it comes to gaydom).
Quote from: Viking on June 16, 2011, 04:31:33 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 16, 2011, 04:15:39 PM
Humane slaughter = contradiction in terms.
If the fake Krauts really gave a crap about animals they would become vegetarians and ban meat sales. But that would piss off the majority. Scapegoating the minority, though . . .
so, you are trying to argue that being tortured to death is equivalent to a (near) painless death? Can you name that logical fallacy? Is it "The Red Herring"? Tell me, your usually good at identifying them.
Bleeding out isn't really that painful a way to die.
Do you oppose testing on animals as well? I imagine shoving electrodes up a monkey's but is far more painful for the animal then having its throat slit.
When he's right he's right. :smoke:
Quote from: Martinus on June 16, 2011, 04:33:53 PM
It's called "being Jewish". Malthus has it too. It shuts off the rational part of the brain when it comes to anything remotely related to Israel or Judaism (I admittedly have it when it comes to gaydom).
You don't have a rational part of your brain.
Quote from: Martinus on June 16, 2011, 04:33:53 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 16, 2011, 04:31:33 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 16, 2011, 04:15:39 PM
Humane slaughter = contradiction in terms.
If the fake Krauts really gave a crap about animals they would become vegetarians and ban meat sales. But that would piss off the majority. Scapegoating the minority, though . . .
so, you are trying to argue that being tortured to death is equivalent to a (near) painless death? Can you name that logical fallacy? Is it "The Red Herring"? Tell me, your usually good at identifying them.
It's called "being Jewish". Malthus has it too. It shuts off the rational part of the brain when it comes to anything remotely related to Israel or Judaism (I admittedly have it when it comes to gaydom).
BTW, is there any topic where I shut off my rational brain (given that we are on the topic). One inquiring mind seeks to confront his biases.
Quote from: Viking on June 16, 2011, 04:27:34 PM
The unskilled doofus still is much more humane than the highly trained knifeman that lets the animal exsanguinate until the heart tries to pump air.
Sure what could be more humane than sticking a cow's head into a vice and then administering electric shocks? Or firing a bolt gun into its head? Sometimes repeatedly if unskilled doofus messes up, as does happen. Sometimes unsuccessfully resulting in slow exsanguination while hanging upside down.
Quote from: Martinus on June 16, 2011, 04:33:53 PM
It's called "being Jewish". Malthus has it too. It shuts off the rational part of the brain when it comes to anything remotely related to Israel or Judaism (I admittedly have it when it comes to gaydom).
No, it just means that they have a tendency to call it out when they see massive bigotry targetted at Jews. It's funny that way.
If the halal/ kosher thing was anything but bigoted tyranny of the majority, and actually about animal cruelty, the relevant authorities would work with the Muslim and Jewish communities to find ways to slaughter animals in ways that satisfied cruelty standards and religious requirements.
But that never happens. It's plain old anti-Semitism and Islamophobia.
Quote from: Viking on June 16, 2011, 04:31:33 PM
so, you are trying to argue that being tortured to death is equivalent to a (near) painless death?
No.
I am making no such argument.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 16, 2011, 04:35:02 PM
Do you oppose testing on animals as well? I imagine shoving electrodes up a monkey's but is far more painful for the animal then having its throat slit.
You are familiar with the cost-benefit analysis are you? When we are talking about research that can save human life these are sacrifices we are willing to make. On the other hand, testing cosmetics and beauty products on animals, when it causes pain to the animal, is banned in most of Europe.
The religious mania of savages ranks rather low on the hierarchy reasons for which we should allow people to torture animals.
Quote from: Martinus on June 16, 2011, 04:32:13 PM
Besides, Europeans did not go to all that trouble to discover a distant (and relatively sparsely populated) land, cause all religious crazies to go there, transport a lot of blacks there, and scare enough Jews to move there, now to have all these people crawl back. :ph34r:
They didn't crawl. They marched back. Over the bodies of dead Euros. Which is why you live under our guns, and Europe is a second rate power.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 16, 2011, 04:35:02 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 16, 2011, 04:31:33 PM
so, you are trying to argue that being tortured to death is equivalent to a (near) painless death? Can you name that logical fallacy? Is it "The Red Herring"? Tell me, your usually good at identifying them.
Bleeding out isn't really that painful a way to die.
Do you oppose testing on animals as well? I imagine shoving electrodes up a monkey's but is far more painful for the animal then having its throat slit.
The humane slaughter methods used in almost the entire first world for the last 80+ years are much less painful than exsanguination.
I support animal testing as a general principle. I just think that whatever purpose an animal is put to it should be treated as humanely as possible.
Quote from: Jacob on June 16, 2011, 04:37:35 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 16, 2011, 04:33:53 PM
It's called "being Jewish". Malthus has it too. It shuts off the rational part of the brain when it comes to anything remotely related to Israel or Judaism (I admittedly have it when it comes to gaydom).
No, it just means that they have a tendency to call it out when they see massive bigotry targetted at Jews. It's funny that way.
If the halal/ kosher thing was anything but bigoted tyranny of the majority, and actually about animal cruelty, the relevant authorities would work with the Muslim and Jewish communities to find ways to slaughter animals in ways that satisfied cruelty standards and religious requirements.
But that never happens. It's plain old anti-Semitism and Islamophobia.
I don't see why we should accommodate religious crazies and savages believing in retarded customs. As I said, GET THE FUCK OUT to your Middle East mud huts if you can't behave like a civilized person here.
Quote from: Martinus on June 16, 2011, 04:37:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 16, 2011, 04:35:02 PM
Do you oppose testing on animals as well? I imagine shoving electrodes up a monkey's but is far more painful for the animal then having its throat slit.
You are familiar with the cost-benefit analysis are you? When we are talking about research that can save human life these are sacrifices we are willing to make. On the other hand, testing cosmetics and beauty products on animals, when it causes pain to the animal, is banned in most of Europe.
The religious mania of savages ranks rather low on the hierarchy reasons for which we should allow people to torture animals.
Eating seems rather import and would rank fairly high on benefit scale. But you made your point. Torturing animals is okay in cases that you like, but wrong for people you don't like.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 16, 2011, 04:37:59 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 16, 2011, 04:32:13 PM
Besides, Europeans did not go to all that trouble to discover a distant (and relatively sparsely populated) land, cause all religious crazies to go there, transport a lot of blacks there, and scare enough Jews to move there, now to have all these people crawl back. :ph34r:
They didn't crawl. They marched back. Over the bodies of dead Euros. Which is why you live under our guns, and Europe is a second rate power.
Yet, we still get to tell the savages to get the fuck out.
Quote from: Martinus on June 16, 2011, 04:33:53 PM
It's called "being Jewish". Malthus has it too. It shuts off the rational part of the brain when it comes to anything remotely related to Israel or Judaism (I admittedly have it when it comes to gaydom).
There is one way to test this hypothesis. But it would require you to say someting rational in the thread that could theoretically address the rational part of someone's brain.
Quote from: Martinus on June 16, 2011, 04:40:19 PM
I don't see why we should accommodate religious crazies and savages believing in retarded customs. As I said, GET THE FUCK OUT to your Middle East mud huts if you can't behave like a civilized person here.
You're a terrible human being.
Jewrabs are hilarious. They are like children. Evil, stupid children.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 16, 2011, 04:40:38 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 16, 2011, 04:37:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 16, 2011, 04:35:02 PM
Do you oppose testing on animals as well? I imagine shoving electrodes up a monkey's but is far more painful for the animal then having its throat slit.
You are familiar with the cost-benefit analysis are you? When we are talking about research that can save human life these are sacrifices we are willing to make. On the other hand, testing cosmetics and beauty products on animals, when it causes pain to the animal, is banned in most of Europe.
The religious mania of savages ranks rather low on the hierarchy reasons for which we should allow people to torture animals.
Eating seems rather import and would rank fairly high on benefit scale. But you made your point. Torturing animals is okay in cases that you like, but wrong for people you don't like.
What part of this are you too dumb to understand? The halal/kosher method of slaughter is not OBJECTIVELY necessarily to prepare an animal to eat it. It is just a part of a retarded, bronze age ideology.
If some cretinous religion came to Europe and insisted they have to sacrifice an infant before every meal, that would still not mean that by preventing them from killing babies we would prevent them from eating.
Why can't Jews and Muslims change their bronze age customs when Christians have done so over the last millennia? I repeat - if you can't behave civilly, then your place is not among the civilized people.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 16, 2011, 04:36:39 PM
Sure what could be more humane than sticking a cow's head into a vice and then administering electric shocks? Or firing a bolt gun into its head? Sometimes repeatedly if unskilled doofus messes up, as does happen. Sometimes unsuccessfully resulting in slow exsanguination while hanging upside down.
Yes. The methods of slaughtering used today are the most humane possible methods. Kosher/Halal is not the most humane possible method. Surely you are not going to argue an incompetent knocker vs the rabbi with ninja-skills? The experts have determined the most effective, safe and humane method. That method should be used. For every failed modern slaughter I refer you to a failed halal/kosher slaughter, and a whole bunch of tortures resulting from expertly done kosher/halal butcherings.
Quote from: Martinus on June 16, 2011, 04:41:05 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 16, 2011, 04:37:59 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 16, 2011, 04:32:13 PM
Besides, Europeans did not go to all that trouble to discover a distant (and relatively sparsely populated) land, cause all religious crazies to go there, transport a lot of blacks there, and scare enough Jews to move there, now to have all these people crawl back. :ph34r:
They didn't crawl. They marched back. Over the bodies of dead Euros. Which is why you live under our guns, and Europe is a second rate power.
Yet, we still get to tell the savages to get the fuck out.
Do you now? Doesn't seem that way. And I should remind you that the reason Europe got marched over and became a second rate power is because you guys were doing shit like this. Some people never learn.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 16, 2011, 04:37:45 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 16, 2011, 04:31:33 PM
so, you are trying to argue that being tortured to death is equivalent to a (near) painless death?
No.
I am making no such argument.
The I suggest you stop posting text that makes it look like you do.
Quote from: Martinus on June 16, 2011, 04:43:35 PM
I repeat - if you can't behave civilly, then your place is not among the civilized people.
This is good advice. You should probably follow it.
Quote from: Jacob on June 16, 2011, 04:42:24 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 16, 2011, 04:40:19 PM
I don't see why we should accommodate religious crazies and savages believing in retarded customs. As I said, GET THE FUCK OUT to your Middle East mud huts if you can't behave like a civilized person here.
You're a terrible human being.
Are you any better when making judgement calls like this?
Quote from: Jacob on June 16, 2011, 04:42:24 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 16, 2011, 04:40:19 PM
I don't see why we should accommodate religious crazies and savages believing in retarded customs. As I said, GET THE FUCK OUT to your Middle East mud huts if you can't behave like a civilized person here.
You're a terrible human being.
Yeah, sorry for siding with defenseless animals over sadistic savages with knives. That indeed makes me horrible. I hope all the blood of dying animals keeps your warm inside, motherfucker.
It's like they have NO will of their own. If their religion told them to fucking fly a plane into a building would they do it?
Really, bleeding out is not very painful. There's a reason why slitting your wrists is a fairly common method of suicide.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg13.imageshack.us%2Fimg13%2F1194%2Fimagineup0.jpg&hash=60619cc0872e33088e827b23c25e8a0738f65460)
There are more "humane" ways of slaughtering animals for consumption. Given the general mood and history of the Netherlands in the last 20 years though, I strongly suspect that this move has little to do with animal suffering and a lot to do with posturing to stick it to the brownies.
Quote from: Viking on June 16, 2011, 04:44:01 PM
Yes. The methods of slaughtering used today are the most humane possible methods. Kosher/Halal is not the most humane possible method. Surely you are not going to argue an incompetent knocker vs the rabbi with ninja-skills? The experts have determined the most effective, safe and humane method.
Which experts are that?
QuoteCaptive bolt and electric stunning will induce instantaneous insensibility when they are properly applied. However, improper application can result in significant stress. All stunning methods trigger a massive secretion of epinephrine (Van der Wal 1978; Warrington 1974). This outpouring of epinephrine is greater than the secretion which would be triggered by an environmental stressor or a restraint method. Since the animal is expected to be unconscious, it does not feel the stress. One can definitely conclude that improperly applied stunning methods would be much more stressful than kosher slaughter with the long straight razor sharp knife. Kilgour (1978), one of the pioneers in animal welfare research, came to a similar conclusion on stunning and slaughter .
. . .
When the cut is done correctly, behavioural reactions to the cut are much less than reactions to air hissing, metal clanging noises, inversion or excessive pressure applied to the body. Discomfort during a properly done shechitah cut is probably minimal because cattle will stand still and do not resist a comfortable head restraint device.
From: http://www.grandin.com/ritual/kosher.slaugh.html
Quote from: Razgovory on June 16, 2011, 04:53:35 PM
Really, bleeding out is not very painful. There's a reason why slitting your wrists is a fairly common method of suicide.
Again, bleeding out is still more painful than blowing your brains out.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 16, 2011, 04:53:58 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 16, 2011, 04:44:01 PM
Yes. The methods of slaughtering used today are the most humane possible methods. Kosher/Halal is not the most humane possible method. Surely you are not going to argue an incompetent knocker vs the rabbi with ninja-skills? The experts have determined the most effective, safe and humane method.
Which experts are that?
QuoteCaptive bolt and electric stunning will induce instantaneous insensibility when they are properly applied. However, improper application can result in significant stress. All stunning methods trigger a massive secretion of epinephrine (Van der Wal 1978; Warrington 1974). This outpouring of epinephrine is greater than the secretion which would be triggered by an environmental stressor or a restraint method. Since the animal is expected to be unconscious, it does not feel the stress. One can definitely conclude that improperly applied stunning methods would be much more stressful than kosher slaughter with the long straight razor sharp knife. Kilgour (1978), one of the pioneers in animal welfare research, came to a similar conclusion on stunning and slaughter .
. . .
When the cut is done correctly, behavioural reactions to the cut are much less than reactions to air hissing, metal clanging noises, inversion or excessive pressure applied to the body. Discomfort during a properly done shechitah cut is probably minimal because cattle will stand still and do not resist a comfortable head restraint device.
From: http://www.grandin.com/ritual/kosher.slaugh.html
Do you have statistics on the number of improper application though?
I think I'm gonna start debating nuclear safety regulations with the authorities and demand exceptions based on my religion. :hmm:
Quote from: Viking on June 16, 2011, 04:53:44 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg13.imageshack.us%2Fimg13%2F1194%2Fimagineup0.jpg&hash=60619cc0872e33088e827b23c25e8a0738f65460)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg64.imageshack.us%2Fimg64%2F3690%2Fcristeroscolgados.jpg&hash=e660ebb5a15cac0de7f9165c27805e4d440e41a8) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/64/cristeroscolgados.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
Not the most pleasant thing to imagine.
Quote from: Zoupa on June 16, 2011, 04:53:55 PM
There are more "humane" ways of slaughtering animals for consumption.
A far more significant factor in "humanity" of animal slaughter than ritual vs. non-ritual methods are the means actually used to carry those out and the experience and skill of slaughtermen. That it seems to me augurs in favor of the ritual methods because generally speaking there are higher requirements for slaughterman skill (and the meat commands a higher price).
But the bigger point is that if one is really interested in reducing discomfort for the animal, there are long lists of matters to be addressed of potentially greater impact than this one. That suggests that the motivation here is probably not an abstract concern for animal welfare.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 16, 2011, 04:53:58 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 16, 2011, 04:44:01 PM
Yes. The methods of slaughtering used today are the most humane possible methods. Kosher/Halal is not the most humane possible method. Surely you are not going to argue an incompetent knocker vs the rabbi with ninja-skills? The experts have determined the most effective, safe and humane method.
Which experts are that?
QuoteCaptive bolt and electric stunning will induce instantaneous insensibility when they are properly applied. However, improper application can result in significant stress. All stunning methods trigger a massive secretion of epinephrine (Van der Wal 1978; Warrington 1974). This outpouring of epinephrine is greater than the secretion which would be triggered by an environmental stressor or a restraint method. Since the animal is expected to be unconscious, it does not feel the stress. One can definitely conclude that improperly applied stunning methods would be much more stressful than kosher slaughter with the long straight razor sharp knife. Kilgour (1978), one of the pioneers in animal welfare research, came to a similar conclusion on stunning and slaughter .
. . .
When the cut is done correctly, behavioural reactions to the cut are much less than reactions to air hissing, metal clanging noises, inversion or excessive pressure applied to the body. Discomfort during a properly done shechitah cut is probably minimal because cattle will stand still and do not resist a comfortable head restraint device.
From: http://www.grandin.com/ritual/kosher.slaugh.html
Not really sure how this is relevant cosidering the the proposed change is to require stunning prior to any ritual throat slitting. The proposed aw wouldn't prevent the ritual, it would just rid the Dutch of the granted religious exceptions.
Quote from: Viking on June 16, 2011, 04:55:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 16, 2011, 04:53:35 PM
Really, bleeding out is not very painful. There's a reason why slitting your wrists is a fairly common method of suicide.
Again, bleeding out is still more painful than blowing your brains out.
To bad captive bolt doesn't do that.
Did they even remotely prove the existence of the Sky Fairy in the first place? If not then the Fairy's wishes regarding slaughter seem fairly irrelevant.
Quote from: The Brain on June 16, 2011, 05:01:35 PM
Did they even remotely prove the existence of the Sky Fairy in the first place? If not then the Fairy's wishes regarding slaughter seem fairly irrelevant.
I lolled :lol:
Quote from: garbon on June 16, 2011, 04:59:00 PM
Not really sure how this is relevant cosidering the the proposed change is to require stunning prior to any ritual throat slitting.
Because it indicates that stunning is not necessarily superior is there is a positive risk of improper application of stunning.
Quote from: Viking on June 16, 2011, 04:44:01 PM
Yes. The methods of slaughtering used today are the most humane possible methods.
:yeahright:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 16, 2011, 05:03:52 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 16, 2011, 04:59:00 PM
Not really sure how this is relevant cosidering the the proposed change is to require stunning prior to any ritual throat slitting.
Because it indicates that stunning is not necessarily superior is there is a positive risk of improper application of stunning.
Presumably wouldn't whomever is doing the ritual slaughtering bit do the stun bit as well or at least be on site while some other staff manager did the stunning? Seems like no matter what, it wouldn't be the "just anybody" who got hired at a slaughtering place.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 16, 2011, 04:53:58 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 16, 2011, 04:44:01 PM
Yes. The methods of slaughtering used today are the most humane possible methods. Kosher/Halal is not the most humane possible method. Surely you are not going to argue an incompetent knocker vs the rabbi with ninja-skills? The experts have determined the most effective, safe and humane method.
Which experts are that?
QuoteCaptive bolt and electric stunning will induce instantaneous insensibility when they are properly applied. However, improper application can result in significant stress. All stunning methods trigger a massive secretion of epinephrine (Van der Wal 1978; Warrington 1974). This outpouring of epinephrine is greater than the secretion which would be triggered by an environmental stressor or a restraint method. Since the animal is expected to be unconscious, it does not feel the stress. One can definitely conclude that improperly applied stunning methods would be much more stressful than kosher slaughter with the long straight razor sharp knife. Kilgour (1978), one of the pioneers in animal welfare research, came to a similar conclusion on stunning and slaughter .
. . .
When the cut is done correctly, behavioural reactions to the cut are much less than reactions to air hissing, metal clanging noises, inversion or excessive pressure applied to the body. Discomfort during a properly done shechitah cut is probably minimal because cattle will stand still and do not resist a comfortable head restraint device.
From: http://www.grandin.com/ritual/kosher.slaugh.html
Yes, your autistic expert with cutting edge science from 1978 concludes that a ninja rabbi might be better than a stunner that misses. You can't go around comparing the ideal result of kosher/halal with failures of modern humane slaughter. If you just read the sentence before your bolded one. I bolded a different bit. The scientific consensus of veterinarians and their professional associations which advise state veterinarians and state animal welfare agencies is the basis we should use. Grandin argues that best practice can be devised for Kosher and Halal which can be as good as sub-optimal stunning. Not to mention that she in her later work advises that stunning be used in concert with ritual slaughter, which the rabbis and mullahs refuse.
Quote from: garbon on June 16, 2011, 05:08:27 PM
Presumably wouldn't whomever is doing the ritual slaughtering bit do the stun bit as well or at least be on site while some other staff manager did the stunning?
As to the former, not sure, but I doubt it because the idea would be to make a quick cut right away. In any event, skill at cutting /= skill at stunning.
The real issue here is that the weight of rabbinical opinion is that stunning is not kosher. So in practice eliminating the exemption means eliminating these businesses because their customers won't buy the meat.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 16, 2011, 04:58:56 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on June 16, 2011, 04:53:55 PM
There are more "humane" ways of slaughtering animals for consumption.
A far more significant factor in "humanity" of animal slaughter than ritual vs. non-ritual methods are the means actually used to carry those out and the experience and skill of slaughtermen. That it seems to me augurs in favor of the ritual methods because generally speaking there are higher requirements for slaughterman skill (and the meat commands a higher price).
But the bigger point is that if one is really interested in reducing discomfort for the animal, there are long lists of matters to be addressed of potentially greater impact than this one. That suggests that the motivation here is probably not an abstract concern for animal welfare.
I would think that someone concerned with animal welfare would spend more time worrying about how animals live, rather than about the precise way that they die. I'm pretty sure if you could ask a cow, they wouldn't be thrilled about any of the different means of slaughtering them.
Quote from: Viking on June 16, 2011, 05:12:52 PM
Yes, your autistic expert with cutting edge science from 1978 concludes that a ninja rabbi might be better than a stunner that misses. You can't go around comparing the ideal result of kosher/halal with failures of modern humane slaughter. If you just read the sentence before your bolded one. I bolded a different bit. The scientific consensus of veterinarians and their professional associations which advise state veterinarians and state animal welfare agencies is the basis we should use. Grandin argues that best practice can be devised for Kosher and Halal which can be as good as sub-optimal stunning.
So other than mocking Ms. Grandin for her disability and making a unsupported appeal to supposed, uncited authority, is there an argument being made here?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 16, 2011, 05:15:19 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 16, 2011, 05:12:52 PM
Yes, your autistic expert with cutting edge science from 1978 concludes that a ninja rabbi might be better than a stunner that misses. You can't go around comparing the ideal result of kosher/halal with failures of modern humane slaughter. If you just read the sentence before your bolded one. I bolded a different bit. The scientific consensus of veterinarians and their professional associations which advise state veterinarians and state animal welfare agencies is the basis we should use. Grandin argues that best practice can be devised for Kosher and Halal which can be as good as sub-optimal stunning.
So other than mocking Ms. Grandin for her disability and making a unsupported appeal to supposed, uncited authority, is there an argument being made here?
I don't mock Dr. Grandin, at least I get her title right. I highlighted a different part of your reference pointing out that you were highlighting a part which is comparing apples to oranges.
Quote from: Martinus on June 16, 2011, 04:50:25 PM
Yeah, sorry for siding with defenseless animals over sadistic savages with knives. That indeed makes me horrible. I hope all the blood of dying animals keeps your warm inside, motherfucker.
You know what keeps me warm inside? My metabolism.
But the certainty that the savages with knives will one day come for you helps.
Quote from: Viking on June 16, 2011, 05:19:10 PM
I don't mock Dr. Grandin, at least I get her title right.
That's not very democratic of you, is it?
Quote from: Barrister on June 16, 2011, 05:14:26 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 16, 2011, 04:58:56 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on June 16, 2011, 04:53:55 PM
There are more "humane" ways of slaughtering animals for consumption.
A far more significant factor in "humanity" of animal slaughter than ritual vs. non-ritual methods are the means actually used to carry those out and the experience and skill of slaughtermen. That it seems to me augurs in favor of the ritual methods because generally speaking there are higher requirements for slaughterman skill (and the meat commands a higher price).
But the bigger point is that if one is really interested in reducing discomfort for the animal, there are long lists of matters to be addressed of potentially greater impact than this one. That suggests that the motivation here is probably not an abstract concern for animal welfare.
I would think that someone concerned with animal welfare would spend more time worrying about how animals live, rather than about the precise way that they die. I'm pretty sure if you could ask a cow, they wouldn't be thrilled about any of the different means of slaughtering them.
:lol:
I'm pretty sure you
can ask a cow, but I doubt you'd get much of an intelligent reply.
Much like when talking at Danes. :hmm:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 16, 2011, 05:13:03 PM
The real issue here is that the weight of rabbinical opinion is that stunning is not kosher. So in practice eliminating the exemption means eliminating these businesses because their customers won't buy the meat.
Well I guess it sucks to be in a segment of a religion where your views can't adjust with the times.
Quote from: garbon on June 16, 2011, 05:29:27 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 16, 2011, 05:13:03 PM
The real issue here is that the weight of rabbinical opinion is that stunning is not kosher. So in practice eliminating the exemption means eliminating these businesses because their customers won't buy the meat.
Well I guess it sucks to be in a segment of a religion where your views can't adjust with the times.
But that's not really the issue here. The issue is that the Dutch are racist.
Quote from: Viking on June 16, 2011, 05:19:10 PM
I don't mock Dr. Grandin, at least I get her title right. I highlighted a different part of your reference pointing out that you were highlighting a part which is comparing apples to oranges.
We Yanks aren't so fastidious about Herr Professor Doktor titles.
The part you highlighted is not in dispute. A *properly* conducted stunning can part of a humane slaughter method if it is accompanied by other best practices. That does not mean that kosher ritual slaughter can not also be humane (comparatively).
The most significant takeaway from the article as a whole is that issues like restraints and training levels of personnel are potentially far more significant issues. Yet rather than focus on these concerns, the politicians are targeting the dusky-hued semitic zealots and their supposedly barbaric ways.
Quote from: Neil on June 16, 2011, 05:31:46 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 16, 2011, 05:29:27 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 16, 2011, 05:13:03 PM
The real issue here is that the weight of rabbinical opinion is that stunning is not kosher. So in practice eliminating the exemption means eliminating these businesses because their customers won't buy the meat.
Well I guess it sucks to be in a segment of a religion where your views can't adjust with the times.
But that's not really the issue here. The issue is that the Dutch are racist.
"
Late shall the sinner awaken" :hmm:
Quote from: Neil on June 16, 2011, 05:31:46 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 16, 2011, 05:29:27 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 16, 2011, 05:13:03 PM
The real issue here is that the weight of rabbinical opinion is that stunning is not kosher. So in practice eliminating the exemption means eliminating these businesses because their customers won't buy the meat.
Well I guess it sucks to be in a segment of a religion where your views can't adjust with the times.
But that's not really the issue here. The issue is that the Dutch are racist.
It's the issue in SF where there is going to be a ballot measure to ban circumcision.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 16, 2011, 05:13:03 PM
The real issue here is that the weight of rabbinical opinion is that stunning is not kosher. So in practice eliminating the exemption means eliminating these businesses because their customers won't buy the meat.
Well, sorry then. Buh-bye.
Quote from: garbon on June 16, 2011, 05:29:27 PM
Well I guess it sucks to be in a segment of a religion where your views can't adjust with the times.
In the USA you don't have to, because the Constitution guarantees free exercise. So if the Amish want to drive their horse drawn-buggies, or if the Mormons want to wear their special undergarments, or the Sikhs their turbans, or if the Catholics want to erect huge statutes of a classical-era Jew on a Roman torture device, then they get to do all those things even if others think it is gauche and terribly out of fashion.
I would have thought that religious freedom counted for more in the Netherlands but perhaps not.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 16, 2011, 05:32:34 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 16, 2011, 05:19:10 PM
I don't mock Dr. Grandin, at least I get her title right. I highlighted a different part of your reference pointing out that you were highlighting a part which is comparing apples to oranges.
We Yanks aren't so fastidious about Herr Professor Doktor titles.
The part you highlighted is not in dispute. A *properly* conducted stunning can part of a humane slaughter method if it is accompanied by other best practices. That does not mean that kosher ritual slaughter can not also be humane (comparatively).
The most significant takeaway from the article as a whole is that issues like restraints and training levels of personnel are potentially far more significant issues. Yet rather than focus on these concerns, the politicians are targeting the dusky-hued semitic zealots and their supposedly barbaric ways.
So, your argument is that Religious rules can be used to justify less than best practice methods of slaughter? Politicians are idiots and specialists like Dr. Grandin and her colleagues in the field of animal welfare constantly suggest improvement in the methods of slaughter. We listen to these experts, not rabbis or mullahs. We do not consider arguments from holy books.
Crying anti-semetism on this issue is pretty weak. Racists have grasped on to this issue without a doubt. The rules for humane slaughter of animals were set by the experts, not the johnny come lately racists getting the headlines today.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 16, 2011, 05:36:57 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 16, 2011, 05:29:27 PM
Well I guess it sucks to be in a segment of a religion where your views can't adjust with the times.
In the USA you don't have to, because the Constitution guarantees free exercise. So if the Amish want to drive their horse drawn-buggies, or if the Mormons want to wear their special undergarments, or the Sikhs their turbans, or if the Catholics want to erect huge statutes of a classical-era Jew on a Roman torture device, then they get to do all those things even if others think it is gauche and terribly out of fashion.
I would have thought that religious freedom counted for more in the Netherlands but perhaps not.
My religion calls for the exsanguination of all Jews before consumption.
Does this fall under freedom of exersise? :hmm:
Quote from: Slargos on June 16, 2011, 05:39:39 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 16, 2011, 05:36:57 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 16, 2011, 05:29:27 PM
Well I guess it sucks to be in a segment of a religion where your views can't adjust with the times.
In the USA you don't have to, because the Constitution guarantees free exercise. So if the Amish want to drive their horse drawn-buggies, or if the Mormons want to wear their special undergarments, or the Sikhs their turbans, or if the Catholics want to erect huge statutes of a classical-era Jew on a Roman torture device, then they get to do all those things even if others think it is gauche and terribly out of fashion.
I would have thought that religious freedom counted for more in the Netherlands but perhaps not.
My religion calls for the exsanguination of all Jews before consumption.
Does this fall under freedom of exersise? :hmm:
It's kinda sad and funny how they don't get it, isn't it?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 16, 2011, 05:36:57 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 16, 2011, 05:29:27 PM
Well I guess it sucks to be in a segment of a religion where your views can't adjust with the times.
In the USA you don't have to, because the Constitution guarantees free exercise. So if the Amish want to drive their horse drawn-buggies, or if the Mormons want to wear their special undergarments, or the Sikhs their turbans, or if the Catholics want to erect huge statutes of a classical-era Jew on a Roman torture device, then they get to do all those things even if others think it is gauche and terribly out of fashion.
I would have thought that religious freedom counted for more in the Netherlands but perhaps not.
It doesn't seem odd to you that the Dutch require everyone else to stun animals before slaughter but Jews and Muslims get a religious exception? I don't really think that's what freedom of religion is supposed to mean.
The Jews and their lackeys the Carpetbaggers have no respect for life, and do not consider the rights of anyone but the Chosen. It is not unsurprising. :sleep:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 16, 2011, 05:36:57 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 16, 2011, 05:29:27 PM
Well I guess it sucks to be in a segment of a religion where your views can't adjust with the times.
In the USA you don't have to, because the Constitution guarantees free exercise. So if the Amish want to drive their horse drawn-buggies, or if the Mormons want to wear their special undergarments, or the Sikhs their turbans, or if the Catholics want to erect huge statutes of a classical-era Jew on a Roman torture device, then they get to do all those things even if others think it is gauche and terribly out of fashion.
I would have thought that religious freedom counted for more in the Netherlands but perhaps not.
Religious freedom doesn't mean you can do anything your stone age book says.
Keep this up, and Wags will never be able to return, you filthy anti-semites. :cry:
Quote from: Zoupa on June 16, 2011, 05:46:07 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 16, 2011, 05:36:57 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 16, 2011, 05:29:27 PM
Well I guess it sucks to be in a segment of a religion where your views can't adjust with the times.
In the USA you don't have to, because the Constitution guarantees free exercise. So if the Amish want to drive their horse drawn-buggies, or if the Mormons want to wear their special undergarments, or the Sikhs their turbans, or if the Catholics want to erect huge statutes of a classical-era Jew on a Roman torture device, then they get to do all those things even if others think it is gauche and terribly out of fashion.
I would have thought that religious freedom counted for more in the Netherlands but perhaps not.
Religious freedom doesn't mean you can do anything your stone age book says.
:huh:
Religious freedom means that we make reasonable accomodations to the religious concerns of our citizens. The classic example are the various accomodations made for sikhs - they are allowed to carry a ceremonial kirpan in a variety of areas where you or I would not be allowed to carry a pocket knife.
Religion is not given carte blanche, but it is certainly given serious consideration.
Quote from: garbon on June 16, 2011, 05:45:32 PM
It doesn't seem odd to you that the Dutch require everyone else to stun animals before slaughter but Jews and Muslims get a religious exception? I don't really think that's what freedom of religion is supposed to mean.
This issue came up in Lukumi Babalu case and the Supreme Court ruled that a local government could not pass an animal welfare ordinance that failed to exempt the Santeria practice of ritual animal sacrifice.
Quote from: Zoupa on June 16, 2011, 05:46:07 PM
Religious freedom doesn't mean you can do anything your stone age book says.
Iron age. :contract:
Quote from: garbon on June 16, 2011, 05:34:49 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 16, 2011, 05:31:46 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 16, 2011, 05:29:27 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 16, 2011, 05:13:03 PM
The real issue here is that the weight of rabbinical opinion is that stunning is not kosher. So in practice eliminating the exemption means eliminating these businesses because their customers won't buy the meat.
Well I guess it sucks to be in a segment of a religion where your views can't adjust with the times.
But that's not really the issue here. The issue is that the Dutch are racist.
It's the issue in SF where there is going to be a ballot measure to ban circumcision.
SF is a pretty racist place.
Quote from: Zoupa on June 16, 2011, 05:46:07 PM
Religious freedom doesn't mean you can do anything your stone age book says.
No, it doesn't, but killing animals is something that is not considered unacceptable. Unless you're some sort of faggot like Martinus or Slargos.
Quote from: Neil on June 16, 2011, 05:57:08 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 16, 2011, 05:34:49 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 16, 2011, 05:31:46 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 16, 2011, 05:29:27 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 16, 2011, 05:13:03 PM
The real issue here is that the weight of rabbinical opinion is that stunning is not kosher. So in practice eliminating the exemption means eliminating these businesses because their customers won't buy the meat.
Well I guess it sucks to be in a segment of a religion where your views can't adjust with the times.
But that's not really the issue here. The issue is that the Dutch are racist.
It's the issue in SF where there is going to be a ballot measure to ban circumcision.
SF is a pretty racist place.
Against blacks, not Jews. :contract:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 16, 2011, 05:56:12 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 16, 2011, 05:45:32 PM
It doesn't seem odd to you that the Dutch require everyone else to stun animals before slaughter but Jews and Muslims get a religious exception? I don't really think that's what freedom of religion is supposed to mean.
This issue came up in Lukumi Babalu case and the Supreme Court ruled that a local government could not pass an animal welfare ordinance that failed to exempt the Santeria practice of ritual animal sacrifice.
This isn't about a local gov't...and I guess then that's what you think religious freedom should be?
Quote from: Barrister on June 16, 2011, 05:54:30 PM
:huh:
Religious freedom means that we make reasonable accomodations to the religious concerns of our citizens. The classic example are the various accomodations made for sikhs - they are allowed to carry a ceremonial kirpan in a variety of areas where you or I would not be allowed to carry a pocket knife.
Religion is not given carte blanche, but it is certainly given serious consideration.
Detestable. Religious freedom shouldn't mean that you get favors because you have a religion.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 16, 2011, 05:56:12 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 16, 2011, 05:45:32 PM
It doesn't seem odd to you that the Dutch require everyone else to stun animals before slaughter but Jews and Muslims get a religious exception? I don't really think that's what freedom of religion is supposed to mean.
This issue came up in Lukumi Babalu case and the Supreme Court ruled that a local government could not pass an animal welfare ordinance that failed to exempt the Santeria practice of ritual animal sacrifice.
Wouldn't an automatic exemption from animal welfare ordinance conflict with the establishment clause?
Quote from: garbon on June 16, 2011, 05:59:09 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 16, 2011, 05:57:08 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 16, 2011, 05:34:49 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 16, 2011, 05:31:46 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 16, 2011, 05:29:27 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 16, 2011, 05:13:03 PM
The real issue here is that the weight of rabbinical opinion is that stunning is not kosher. So in practice eliminating the exemption means eliminating these businesses because their customers won't buy the meat.
Well I guess it sucks to be in a segment of a religion where your views can't adjust with the times.
But that's not really the issue here. The issue is that the Dutch are racist.
It's the issue in SF where there is going to be a ballot measure to ban circumcision.
SF is a pretty racist place.
Against blacks, not Jews. :contract:
No, they hate Jews too. Israel, and all that.
Quote from: Barrister on June 16, 2011, 05:54:30 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on June 16, 2011, 05:46:07 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 16, 2011, 05:36:57 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 16, 2011, 05:29:27 PM
Well I guess it sucks to be in a segment of a religion where your views can't adjust with the times.
In the USA you don't have to, because the Constitution guarantees free exercise. So if the Amish want to drive their horse drawn-buggies, or if the Mormons want to wear their special undergarments, or the Sikhs their turbans, or if the Catholics want to erect huge statutes of a classical-era Jew on a Roman torture device, then they get to do all those things even if others think it is gauche and terribly out of fashion.
I would have thought that religious freedom counted for more in the Netherlands but perhaps not.
Religious freedom doesn't mean you can do anything your stone age book says.
:huh:
Religious freedom means that we make reasonable accomodations to the religious concerns of our citizens. The classic example are the various accomodations made for sikhs - they are allowed to carry a ceremonial kirpan in a variety of areas where you or I would not be allowed to carry a pocket knife.
Religion is not given carte blanche, but it is certainly given serious consideration.
That is a terrible example, since that accomodation was not reasonable at all.
Quote from: Neil on June 16, 2011, 06:07:21 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 16, 2011, 05:59:09 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 16, 2011, 05:57:08 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 16, 2011, 05:34:49 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 16, 2011, 05:31:46 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 16, 2011, 05:29:27 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 16, 2011, 05:13:03 PM
The real issue here is that the weight of rabbinical opinion is that stunning is not kosher. So in practice eliminating the exemption means eliminating these businesses because their customers won't buy the meat.
Well I guess it sucks to be in a segment of a religion where your views can't adjust with the times.
But that's not really the issue here. The issue is that the Dutch are racist.
It's the issue in SF where there is going to be a ballot measure to ban circumcision.
SF is a pretty racist place.
Against blacks, not Jews. :contract:
No, they hate Jews too. Israel, and all that.
You're right there are a lot of those nuts. I used to glare at the people at the end of my block wanting me to sign petitions against Israeli actions in Palestine.
Quote from: Viking on June 16, 2011, 06:01:22 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 16, 2011, 05:56:12 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 16, 2011, 05:45:32 PM
It doesn't seem odd to you that the Dutch require everyone else to stun animals before slaughter but Jews and Muslims get a religious exception? I don't really think that's what freedom of religion is supposed to mean.
This issue came up in Lukumi Babalu case and the Supreme Court ruled that a local government could not pass an animal welfare ordinance that failed to exempt the Santeria practice of ritual animal sacrifice.
Wouldn't an automatic exemption from animal welfare ordinance conflict with the establishment clause?
No. They're both creatures of the First Amendment. The issue isn't that you're exempt from the ordinance, but rather that the state doesn't have the power to pass it.
Quote from: Martinus on June 16, 2011, 04:50:25 PMYeah, sorry for siding with defenseless animals over sadistic savages with knives. That indeed makes me horrible. I hope all the blood of dying animals keeps your warm inside, motherfucker.
:lmfao:
I didn't know you were a militant vegan :huh:
Quote from: Zoupa on June 16, 2011, 06:08:27 PMThat is a terrible example, since that accomodation was not reasonable at all.
It was quite reasonable.
Quote from: garbon link=topic=5349.msg272877#msg272877
This isn't about a local gov't...and I guess then that's what you think religious freedom should be?
The level of government shouldn't matter. A federal level restriction would be even more burdensome.
My own personal opinion is that government should make reasonable accommodation to religious practice. Otherwise free exercise could easily be rendered ineffective by just targeting certain religious practices with rules that are drafted to appear of general applicability.
Quote from: Jacob on June 16, 2011, 06:24:55 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on June 16, 2011, 06:08:27 PMThat is a terrible example, since that accomodation was not reasonable at all.
It was quite reasonable.
The kirpan? That's pretty much on the borderline.
Quote from: Barrister on June 16, 2011, 05:14:26 PM
I would think that someone concerned with animal welfare would spend more time worrying about how animals live, rather than about the precise way that they die. I'm pretty sure if you could ask a cow, they wouldn't be thrilled about any of the different means of slaughtering them.
Yeah. If you really care about the welfare of feedstock animals, how they are treated before the time to butcher them should be of a lot more concern than how they are slaughtered.
Personally, I don't really give a damn how they're treated as long as it doesn't hurt the quality of the meat that ends up on my table. And I'm pretty sure that neither Marty or Slargos give a damn about the animals, either; for them the issue is just a way to stick it to the Jews and Moslems.
Quote from: Neil on June 16, 2011, 05:58:15 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on June 16, 2011, 05:46:07 PM
Religious freedom doesn't mean you can do anything your stone age book says.
No, it doesn't, but killing animals is something that is not considered unacceptable. Unless you're some sort of faggot like Martinus or Slargos.
<_<
Quote from: dps on June 16, 2011, 06:44:45 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 16, 2011, 05:14:26 PM
I would think that someone concerned with animal welfare would spend more time worrying about how animals live, rather than about the precise way that they die. I'm pretty sure if you could ask a cow, they wouldn't be thrilled about any of the different means of slaughtering them.
Yeah. If you really care about the welfare of feedstock animals, how they are treated before the time to butcher them should be of a lot more concern than how they are slaughtered.
Personally, I don't really give a damn how they're treated as long as it doesn't hurt the quality of the meat that ends up on my table. And I'm pretty sure that neither Marty or Slargos give a damn about the animals, either; for them the issue is just a way to stick it to the Jews and Moslems.
:huh:
Sometimes I wonder about you.
Yes, my main concern lies with sticking it to the semitic races.
However, the notion that you should be allowed to treat your animals whichever way you care to is appalling.
Quote from: Viking on June 16, 2011, 03:46:28 PM
Yes, your silly ancient desert fairy tale tells you to torture animals. Your non-existent god is a sadist, I get that. You want me to respect your war criminal torturist paedophile murderer rapist bandit thief of a prophet, I get that. I'm sorry, but fuck you.
Ayesha's age at marriage is disputed.
Citations 173-76
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed#cite_note-181
It's an amusing issue to tie yourself to the mast over. And it's sad that the Jews think it's a good idea to be seen on the same team as the Arabs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya
Quote from: The Brain on June 16, 2011, 07:02:22 PM
It's an amusing issue to tie yourself to the mast over. And it's sad that the Jews think it's a good idea to be seen on the same team as the Arabs.
Well, they don't have a choice. The Dutch and other euroracists are looking around for a way to persecute the Muslims. Of course they're going to revive their old anti-Semitic progrom techniques. It's acceptable and in some cases even welcome collateral damage.
Quote from: Slargos on June 16, 2011, 06:56:37 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 16, 2011, 05:58:15 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on June 16, 2011, 05:46:07 PM
Religious freedom doesn't mean you can do anything your stone age book says.
No, it doesn't, but killing animals is something that is not considered unacceptable. Unless you're some sort of faggot like Martinus or Slargos.
<_<
You're judged by the company you keep.
Yeah well if being against the legalized torture of animals forces me into the faggotry camp, then so be it. :moon:
Quote from: Slargos on June 16, 2011, 07:14:34 PM
Yeah well if being against the legalized torture of animals forces me into the faggotry camp, then so be it. :moon:
You're not especially interested in that. What you are interested in is using a wedge issue to preach hate. You are impure. You remind me of the anti-evolutionist lobby.
Do you ever worry that your Jew blood may be impairing your judgement? :hmm:
Quote from: Slargos on June 16, 2011, 07:27:36 PM
Do you ever worry that your Jew blood may be impairing your judgement? :hmm:
Not really. After all, it's not blood that impairs judgement, but rather culture.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 16, 2011, 05:56:54 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on June 16, 2011, 05:46:07 PM
Religious freedom doesn't mean you can do anything your stone age book says.
Iron age. :contract:
Yeah, the same time period from whence most European law is derived.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 16, 2011, 07:01:31 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 16, 2011, 03:46:28 PM
Yes, your silly ancient desert fairy tale tells you to torture animals. Your non-existent god is a sadist, I get that. You want me to respect your war criminal torturist paedophile murderer rapist bandit thief of a prophet, I get that. I'm sorry, but fuck you.
Ayesha's age at marriage is disputed.
Citations 173-76
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed#cite_note-181
I'm not sure an Icelander should be going on about people's founders who are rapists, bandits and murderers.
Muslim vermin being obnoxious - joined with Jews being their usual exclusivist selves...
What's not to 'love'?
Bahh - two faces of the same irredentist coin. They're all Semites after all!
G.
A Quebecker complaining about someone being obnoxious, exclusive, and irredentist? :lol:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 16, 2011, 05:56:12 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 16, 2011, 05:45:32 PM
It doesn't seem odd to you that the Dutch require everyone else to stun animals before slaughter but Jews and Muslims get a religious exception? I don't really think that's what freedom of religion is supposed to mean.
This issue came up in Lukumi Babalu case and the Supreme Court ruled that a local government could not pass an animal welfare ordinance that failed to exempt the Santeria practice of ritual animal sacrifice.
Yeah, but the ordinance in Lukumi Babalu was passed specifically to outlaw the Santeria practice of sacrifice, rather than a law of general applicability regarding killing of animals...
Quote from: Zoupa on June 16, 2011, 06:08:27 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 16, 2011, 05:54:30 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on June 16, 2011, 05:46:07 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 16, 2011, 05:36:57 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 16, 2011, 05:29:27 PM
Well I guess it sucks to be in a segment of a religion where your views can't adjust with the times.
In the USA you don't have to, because the Constitution guarantees free exercise. So if the Amish want to drive their horse drawn-buggies, or if the Mormons want to wear their special undergarments, or the Sikhs their turbans, or if the Catholics want to erect huge statutes of a classical-era Jew on a Roman torture device, then they get to do all those things even if others think it is gauche and terribly out of fashion.
I would have thought that religious freedom counted for more in the Netherlands but perhaps not.
Religious freedom doesn't mean you can do anything your stone age book says.
:huh:
Religious freedom means that we make reasonable accomodations to the religious concerns of our citizens. The classic example are the various accomodations made for sikhs - they are allowed to carry a ceremonial kirpan in a variety of areas where you or I would not be allowed to carry a pocket knife.
Religion is not given carte blanche, but it is certainly given serious consideration.
That is a terrible example, since that accomodation was not reasonable at all.
:huh: I'm not terribly bothered by it.
Sikhs provide a great many examples of reasonable accomodation. Their turbans: they are allowed to wear a turban instead of other uniform headgear, but are still required to wear a hardhat. The religious accomodation is given a lot of weight, but not absolute.
Quote from: Slargos on June 16, 2011, 07:14:34 PM
Yeah well if being against the legalized torture of animals forces me into the faggotry camp, then so be it. :moon:
Halal and kosher slaughter is far from "legalized torture of animals".
Quote from: Neil on June 16, 2011, 06:34:24 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 16, 2011, 06:24:55 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on June 16, 2011, 06:08:27 PMThat is a terrible example, since that accomodation was not reasonable at all.
It was quite reasonable.
The kirpan? That's pretty much on the borderline.
BUt this is at least progress (to my mind). It's recognizing that accommodations can and should be made, and we're just discussing where to draw the line.
I understand that generally the kirpan for places like an airport must be very small and almost purely ceremonial - but still they are carrying an edged weapon where other people could not.
I'm surprised how seventh century Arabia is falling backwards through time. First to the Bronze age, and now to the stone age. By next week it may be somewhere in the middle Eocene.
Quote from: dps on June 16, 2011, 06:44:45 PM
And I'm pretty sure that neither Marty or Slargos give a damn about the animals, either;
Fuck you about what you are "pretty sure". I donate to anti-animal-cruelty causes, I only buy eggs from free range chickens because of animal cruelty issues, I do not buy cosmetics tested on animals, I do not wear fur, I oppose hunting and when I have an alternative I try to buy meat from animals that were kept in humane conditions.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 16, 2011, 11:47:25 PM
I'm surprised how seventh century Arabia is falling backwards through time. First to the Bronze age, and now to the stone age. By next week it may be somewhere in the middle Eocene.
Weren't kosher meat slaughter rules established B.C.?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 16, 2011, 06:34:05 PM
My own personal opinion is that government should make reasonable accommodation to religious practice.
But (thank God) this is not what freedom of religion means in Europe. It means you can profess your belief in a deity or deities (although also with restrictions, e.g. when you are a public official) and you can worship your deity or deities, including together with fellow believers. You do not get special exceptions from laws applicable to everyone. That would be against the rule of separation of church and state (unlike in the US, it means more than just a prohibition against establishing a state church here).
Quote from: Barrister on June 16, 2011, 11:09:24 PM
Quote from: Slargos on June 16, 2011, 07:14:34 PM
Yeah well if being against the legalized torture of animals forces me into the faggotry camp, then so be it. :moon:
Halal and kosher slaughter is far from "legalized torture of animals".
dps noted that he doesn't cared what people do to their animals, and it's this attitude that I'm opposed to.
Quote from: Slargos on June 17, 2011, 01:35:03 AM
Quote from: Barrister on June 16, 2011, 11:09:24 PM
Quote from: Slargos on June 16, 2011, 07:14:34 PM
Yeah well if being against the legalized torture of animals forces me into the faggotry camp, then so be it. :moon:
Halal and kosher slaughter is far from "legalized torture of animals".
dps noted that he doesn't cared what people do to their animals, and it's this attitude that I'm opposed to.
Dps is a fundamentalist Christian (by his own admission), hence an idiot. You shouldn't care what fundamentalists say, do or want.
Quote from: Martinus on June 17, 2011, 01:37:19 AM
Quote from: Slargos on June 17, 2011, 01:35:03 AM
Quote from: Barrister on June 16, 2011, 11:09:24 PM
Quote from: Slargos on June 16, 2011, 07:14:34 PM
Yeah well if being against the legalized torture of animals forces me into the faggotry camp, then so be it. :moon:
Halal and kosher slaughter is far from "legalized torture of animals".
dps noted that he doesn't cared what people do to their animals, and it's this attitude that I'm opposed to.
Dps is a fundamentalist Christian (by his own admission), hence an idiot. You shouldn't care what fundamentalists say, do or want.
Ho. That is a two-edged sword there. Just sayin'. :P
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 16, 2011, 07:01:31 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 16, 2011, 03:46:28 PM
Yes, your silly ancient desert fairy tale tells you to torture animals. Your non-existent god is a sadist, I get that. You want me to respect your war criminal torturist paedophile murderer rapist bandit thief of a prophet, I get that. I'm sorry, but fuck you.
Ayesha's age at marriage is disputed.
Citations 173-76
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed#cite_note-181
those are all in arabic or farsi, not linked or just a reference to tariq ramadan. The traditional sources do cite her age as 6 or 7 when married and 9 when the marriage was consumated (after her illness when she lost her hair). If you aren't going to argue that she was an adult (as defined at the time) then you are merely obfuscating and ignoring the murder, torture, war crimes, aggression etc.etc.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 16, 2011, 09:13:58 PM
I'm not sure an Icelander should be going on about people's founders who are rapists, bandits and murderers.
My ancestors were rapists, bandits, murderers, slavers and all round criminals. I do not, however, live my life based on the example of Egil Skallagrímsson or base my ethics on Þormóður Kolbrúnaskáld or my morality on Gissur Jarl. I can't imagine what point you are trying to make? That because my ancestors were dicks, muslims and jews get to torture animals. Is that your argument?
For all that some people protest when being called racists, they sure do seem to believe strongly that all a person is, is the sum of his genetic heritage. :hmm:
Quote from: Martinus on June 17, 2011, 01:37:19 AM
Quote from: Slargos on June 17, 2011, 01:35:03 AM
Quote from: Barrister on June 16, 2011, 11:09:24 PM
Quote from: Slargos on June 16, 2011, 07:14:34 PM
Yeah well if being against the legalized torture of animals forces me into the faggotry camp, then so be it. :moon:
Halal and kosher slaughter is far from "legalized torture of animals".
dps noted that he doesn't cared what people do to their animals, and it's this attitude that I'm opposed to.
Dps is a fundamentalist Christian (by his own admission), hence an idiot. You shouldn't care what fundamentalists say, do or want.
You know, people might think that I'm an idiot or a bigot because I'm a Christian, but in general, I'm probably one of the more tolerant people on this forum. For example, when you post something moronic or assinine, I don't say it's because you're a lawyer, or because you're gay, or because you're Polish--I just assume that the stupidity and asshattery are unique to you, rather than something intrinsic to members of those groups.
Quote from: dps on June 17, 2011, 03:12:44 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 17, 2011, 01:37:19 AM
Quote from: Slargos on June 17, 2011, 01:35:03 AM
Quote from: Barrister on June 16, 2011, 11:09:24 PM
Quote from: Slargos on June 16, 2011, 07:14:34 PM
Yeah well if being against the legalized torture of animals forces me into the faggotry camp, then so be it. :moon:
Halal and kosher slaughter is far from "legalized torture of animals".
dps noted that he doesn't cared what people do to their animals, and it's this attitude that I'm opposed to.
Dps is a fundamentalist Christian (by his own admission), hence an idiot. You shouldn't care what fundamentalists say, do or want.
You know, people might think that I'm an idiot or a bigot because inspite of claiming to be I'm a Christian, but in general, I'm probably one of the more tolerant people on this forum. For example, when you post something moronic or assinine, I don't say it's because you're a lawyer, or because you're gay, or because you're Polish--I just assume that the stupidity and asshattery are unique to you, rather than something intrinsic to members of those groups.
FYP :P
I could've sworn there was a passage about treating all god's creatures with a sense of respect.. :hmm:
Quote from: Slargos on June 17, 2011, 03:11:21 AM
For all that some people protest when being called racists, they sure do seem to believe strongly that all a person is, is the sum of his genetic heritage. :hmm:
What's even more funny is that Americans seem to believe that their ancestors were different from the Europeans' ancestors. :lol:
Quote from: dps on June 17, 2011, 03:12:44 AM
You know, people might think that I'm an idiot or a bigot because I'm a Christian, but in general, I'm probably one of the more tolerant people on this forum. For example, when you post something moronic or assinine, I don't say it's because you're a lawyer, or because you're gay, or because you're Polish--I just assume that the stupidity and asshattery are unique to you, rather than something intrinsic to members of those groups.
Wow, so you can handle the basics of being a decent person. :mellow:
Quote from: Martinus on June 17, 2011, 06:01:38 AM
Quote from: Slargos on June 17, 2011, 03:11:21 AM
For all that some people protest when being called racists, they sure do seem to believe strongly that all a person is, is the sum of his genetic heritage. :hmm:
What's even more funny is that Americans seem to believe that their ancestors were different from the Europeans' ancestors. :lol:
:swiss:
I love these threads where the single intellectual demolishes the arguments of the Seven Intellectual Dwarfs. This thread was kinda like the '67 War, only the Jews won more easily in this thread because their foes in the thread were more silly and feeble.
Quote from: Martinus on June 17, 2011, 06:01:38 AM
Quote from: Slargos on June 17, 2011, 03:11:21 AM
For all that some people protest when being called racists, they sure do seem to believe strongly that all a person is, is the sum of his genetic heritage. :hmm:
What's even more funny is that Americans seem to believe that their ancestors were different from the Europeans' ancestors. :lol:
I didn't evolve from a ....EURO. Disgusting. :mad:
I wish we could have halal or kosher pork. :mmm:
Quote from: grumbler on June 17, 2011, 07:54:14 AM
I love these threads where the single intellectual demolishes the arguments of the Seven Intellectual Dwarfs. This thread was kinda like the '67 War, only the Jews won more easily in this thread because their foes in the thread were more silly and feeble.
Yay!!! We win this thread. Grumbler corollary to Godwin's Law FTW!!!! "Whoever grumbler supports in a debate loses it."
Quote from: Martinus on June 17, 2011, 01:29:25 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 16, 2011, 11:47:25 PM
I'm surprised how seventh century Arabia is falling backwards through time. First to the Bronze age, and now to the stone age. By next week it may be somewhere in the middle Eocene.
Weren't kosher meat slaughter rules established B.C.?
The Koran was written around the seventh century. When the Torah was written is not known exactly but it's firmly in the iron age. Probably 5th or 6th century BC. Just so you know, the Bronze age ended around 3,000 years ago.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 08:09:52 AM
Probably 5th or 6th century BC. Just so you know, the Bronze age ended around 3,000 years ago.
Fucking Sea Peoples ruined everything.
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 02:46:57 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 16, 2011, 09:13:58 PM
I'm not sure an Icelander should be going on about people's founders who are rapists, bandits and murderers.
My ancestors were rapists, bandits, murderers, slavers and all round criminals. I do not, however, live my life based on the example of Egil Skallagrímsson or base my ethics on Þormóður Kolbrúnaskáld or my morality on Gissur Jarl. I can't imagine what point you are trying to make? That because my ancestors were dicks, muslims and jews get to torture animals. Is that your argument?
You attacked the founder of the Muslim religion on the basis of being a murder and rapist. So I pointed out the founders of Iceland were also rapists and murders. However, neither you or the majority of Muslims are rapists and murderers. So I'm not sure how relevant your original attack was.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 08:23:00 AM
You attacked the founder of the Muslim religion on the basis of being a murder and rapist. So I pointed out the founders of Iceland were also rapists and murders. However, neither you or the majority of Muslims are rapists and murderers. So I'm not sure how relevant your original attack was.
The Muslims (or at least the mainstream ones) hold Mohammed as being the most righteous of righteous men who we should all base our lives on so critisizing a guy who is supposed to be the ultimate Godly man seems like a reasonable criticism of the religion.
Quote from: Valmy on June 17, 2011, 08:29:54 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 08:23:00 AM
You attacked the founder of the Muslim religion on the basis of being a murder and rapist. So I pointed out the founders of Iceland were also rapists and murders. However, neither you or the majority of Muslims are rapists and murderers. So I'm not sure how relevant your original attack was.
The Muslims (or at least the mainstream ones) hold Mohammed as being the most righteous of righteous men who we should all base our lives on so critisizing a guy who is supposed to be the ultimate Godly man seems like a reasonable criticism of the religion.
However, they generally don't rape and murder.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 08:33:07 AM
However, they generally don't rape and murder.
True :P
My main issue with Mohammed is that he fought a war, which doesn't strike me as very spiritual, rather than some sort of trumped up charges on his personal life.
If you truly respect religious people you challenge their silly ideas. Smiling and nodding means treating them like children or retards that you don't expect thought from. A grown man who trots out the Sky Fairy should be ridiculed if you respect him, because he is being extremely silly.
Quote from: Valmy on June 17, 2011, 08:34:19 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 08:33:07 AM
However, they generally don't rape and murder.
True :P
My main issue with Mohammed is that he fought a war, which doesn't strike me as very spiritual, rather than some sort of trumped up charges on his personal life.
I admit, I'm biased against Icelanders. An Icelandic exchange student broke my arm in middle school. I have never forgiven the whole misbegotten race.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 08:41:08 AM
I admit, I'm biased against Icelanders. An Icelandic exchange student broke my arm in middle school. I have never forgiven the whole misbegotten race.
Well there are only about 100,000 of them so actually you got a pretty large population sample there.
Whats up with the hard on for Islam, raz?
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 17, 2011, 08:44:35 AM
Whats up with the hard on for Islam, raz?
Nothing really. I just don't hate them. I have always believed the state has better things to do then harass religious minorities.
EDIT: Why should pointing out that most Muslims don't rape and murder count as a "hard on for Islam"?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 08:50:17 AM
Nothing really. I just don't hate them. I have always believed the state has better things to do then harass religious minorities.
Damn hippy liberal.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 08:23:00 AM
You attacked the founder of the Muslim religion on the basis of being a murder and rapist. So I pointed out the founders of Iceland were also rapists and murders. However, neither you or the majority of Muslims are rapists and murderers. So I'm not sure how relevant your original attack was.
Nobody and I mean nobody is claiming that the ethical, moral and theological claims of the founders of Iceland have any value due to who made them, muslims do. There is no inherited guilt. Just because my ancestors were wrong and immoral doesn't meant that I am wrong and immoral, especially when I profoundly object to their moral and ethical claims. The difference between me and the modern muslim demanding to be allowed to use halal slaughter is that I don't base my view on slaughter on the divine commands of thor as relvealed to us by Erik the Assraped, they do base their view on slaughter on the divine commands of allah as revealed to us by Mohammed the Kiddieraper. That is the difference. The sayings and actions of my ancestors are not in any way relevant to me.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 08:50:17 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 17, 2011, 08:44:35 AM
Whats up with the hard on for Islam, raz?
Nothing really. I just don't hate them. I have always believed the state has better things to do then harass religious minorities.
EDIT: Why should pointing out that most Muslims don't rape and murder count as a "hard on for Islam"?
Most may not but their prophet did.
Anyway, it doesn't. I just assumed that you would defend them from other unwarranted attacks.
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 08:53:04 AM
I don't base my view on slaughter on the divine commands of thor as relvealed to us by Erik the Assraped
Iceland would be so much more awesome if you did.
Quote from: Valmy on June 17, 2011, 08:55:32 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 08:53:04 AM
I don't base my view on slaughter on the divine commands of thor as relvealed to us by Erik the Assraped
Iceland would be so much more awesome if you did.
could have gotten out of this whole bankruptcy thing by just raiding england. maybe they should follow in the forebearers train of thouhgt :D
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 16, 2011, 05:03:52 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 16, 2011, 04:59:00 PM
Not really sure how this is relevant cosidering the the proposed change is to require stunning prior to any ritual throat slitting.
Because it indicates that stunning is not necessarily superior is there is a positive risk of improper application of stunning.
That's a very shoddy argument. By that logic, wearing a seatbelt is not necessarily superior to not wearing one, because in some rare cases you're better off being ejected from the car rather than remaining strapped to it.
You cannot compare methods by taking the best case of one against the worst case of another. There is a reason we have a concept of averages and expectation.
Quote from: Valmy on June 17, 2011, 08:44:29 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 08:41:08 AM
I admit, I'm biased against Icelanders. An Icelandic exchange student broke my arm in middle school. I have never forgiven the whole misbegotten race.
Well there are only about 100,000 of them so actually you got a pretty large population sample there.
320,000 :contract:
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 08:53:04 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 08:23:00 AM
You attacked the founder of the Muslim religion on the basis of being a murder and rapist. So I pointed out the founders of Iceland were also rapists and murders. However, neither you or the majority of Muslims are rapists and murderers. So I'm not sure how relevant your original attack was.
Nobody and I mean nobody is claiming that the ethical, moral and theological claims of the founders of Iceland have any value due to who made them, muslims do. There is no inherited guilt. Just because my ancestors were wrong and immoral doesn't meant that I am wrong and immoral, especially when I profoundly object to their moral and ethical claims. The difference between me and the modern muslim demanding to be allowed to use halal slaughter is that I don't base my view on slaughter on the divine commands of thor as relvealed to us by Erik the Assraped, they do base their view on slaughter on the divine commands of allah as revealed to us by Mohammed the Kiddieraper. That is the difference. The sayings and actions of my ancestors are not in any way relevant to me.
What do you base your views on? And if I made a personal attack on who you take inspiration from, would that invalidate those views?
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 08:59:24 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 17, 2011, 08:44:29 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 08:41:08 AM
I admit, I'm biased against Icelanders. An Icelandic exchange student broke my arm in middle school. I have never forgiven the whole misbegotten race.
Well there are only about 100,000 of them so actually you got a pretty large population sample there.
320,000 :contract:
And I shall not rest till I find the one that broke my arm. Since I don't actually remember his is name I'll just break the arms of every Icelander I come across. His first name was Peter. If you could point him out, it would make this go a lot quicker.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 09:02:45 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 08:59:24 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 17, 2011, 08:44:29 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 08:41:08 AM
I admit, I'm biased against Icelanders. An Icelandic exchange student broke my arm in middle school. I have never forgiven the whole misbegotten race.
Well there are only about 100,000 of them so actually you got a pretty large population sample there.
320,000 :contract:
And I shall not rest till I find the one that broke my arm. Since I don't actually remember his is name I'll just break the arms of every Icelander I come across. His first name was Peter. If you could point him out, it would make this go a lot quicker.
First name Peter
Exchange student in the USA
Tell me his age and I can find him.
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 09:07:37 AM
First name Peter
Exchange student in the USA
Tell me his age and I can find him.
Probably the around the same as me. 28-30.
Quote from: The Brain on June 17, 2011, 08:36:02 AM
If you truly respect religious people you challenge their silly ideas. Smiling and nodding means treating them like children or retards that you don't expect thought from.
I'm sure most atheists attempt the former first, only to resign themselves to the latter.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 09:01:14 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 08:53:04 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 08:23:00 AM
You attacked the founder of the Muslim religion on the basis of being a murder and rapist. So I pointed out the founders of Iceland were also rapists and murders. However, neither you or the majority of Muslims are rapists and murderers. So I'm not sure how relevant your original attack was.
Nobody and I mean nobody is claiming that the ethical, moral and theological claims of the founders of Iceland have any value due to who made them, muslims do. There is no inherited guilt. Just because my ancestors were wrong and immoral doesn't meant that I am wrong and immoral, especially when I profoundly object to their moral and ethical claims. The difference between me and the modern muslim demanding to be allowed to use halal slaughter is that I don't base my view on slaughter on the divine commands of thor as relvealed to us by Erik the Assraped, they do base their view on slaughter on the divine commands of allah as revealed to us by Mohammed the Kiddieraper. That is the difference. The sayings and actions of my ancestors are not in any way relevant to me.
What do you base your views on? And if I made a personal attack on who you take inspiration from, would that invalidate those views?
Norwegian Food Safety Authority (http://www.mattilsynet.no/portal/page?_pageid=54,40103&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&language=english), get going with your personal attacks.
Attacks on the personal morality of Mohammed are a perfectly counter to the appeal to the authority of Mohammed, which is precisely what the muslim argument for halal is.
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 17, 2011, 08:54:39 AM
Anyway, it doesn't. I just assumed that you would defend them from other unwarranted attacks.
Eh, it's not like CdM or Siegy ranting on about Muslims. This is a state using it's power to harass people.
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 09:15:19 AM
http://Norwegian Food Safety Authority (http://www.mattilsynet.no/portal/page?_pageid=54,40103&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&language=english), get going with your personal attacks.
Attacks on the personal morality of Mohammed are a perfectly counter to the appeal to the authority of Mohammed, which is precisely what the muslim argument for halal is.
You have no ideas beyond Norwegian food safety authority?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 09:17:30 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 09:15:19 AM
http://Norwegian Food Safety Authority (http://www.mattilsynet.no/portal/page?_pageid=54,40103&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&language=english), get going with your personal attacks.
Attacks on the personal morality of Mohammed are a perfectly counter to the appeal to the authority of Mohammed, which is precisely what the muslim argument for halal is.
You have no ideas beyond Norwegian food safety authority?
When it comes to animal welfare and the treatment of animals during slaughter, yes.
The Norwegian food safety authority deals with domesticated animal welfare and regulates Veterinarians working with farm animals as well, strange as that might be. I could refer to the equivalent bodies for most of Europe. I do not refer to Sven the Seasick.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 09:15:47 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 17, 2011, 08:54:39 AM
Anyway, it doesn't. I just assumed that you would defend them from other unwarranted attacks.
Eh, it's not like CdM or Siegy ranting on about Muslims. This is a state using it's power to harass people.
You mean the Dutch government? It's retarded PETA MPs pushing for a stupid legislation.
Quote from: ulmont on June 16, 2011, 10:15:59 PM
Yeah, but the ordinance in Lukumi Babalu was passed specifically to outlaw the Santeria practice of sacrifice, rather than a law of general applicability regarding killing of animals...
but in fact the ordinances in Lukumi Babalu were laws of general applicability. One of the ordinances incorporated state animal cruelty laws and enhanced penalties. Another provided that "it shall be unlawful for any person, persons, corporations or associations to sacrifice any animal within the corporate limits of the City of Hialeah, Florida" and defined sacrifice as "to unnecessarily kill, torment, torture, or mutilate an animal in a public or private ritual or ceremony not for the primary purpose of food consumption." So nothing in the law wasspecific to Santeira or the Santeria practice or any indeed any specific religious practice.
Kennedy argued in his opinion that the circumstances suggested intent to target Santeria. But a majority of the Court either rejected the intent-vased standard (Scalia/Rehnquist) or rejected the Smith rule outright (Souter, O'Connor, Blackmun).
The fact is Employment Division v. Smith is the outlier in free exercise jurisprudence - it can't logically be squared with Barnette (religious opt out from flag salute) and particularly Yoder (Amish opt out from compulsory school attendance). Smith was a classic case of bad facts, making bad law -- it concerned ritual use of peyote and was decided at the time when the "drug epidemic" and the associated "drug war" hysteria were at their height; even then only 5 justices could be assembled to back the majority opinion. In the federal sphere, it has been superseded by RFRA and at the state level, state supreme courts and legislatures have in many cases filled the breach. How Smith would fare today is unclear given the turnover in the Court since then, but the fact that the Court has had little opportunity to address the matter in recent years (as opposed to the stream of Establishment Clause cases) is indicative that the norm in America is reasonable accomodation even for laws of general applicability,
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 16, 2011, 05:03:52 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 16, 2011, 04:59:00 PM
Not really sure how this is relevant cosidering the the proposed change is to require stunning prior to any ritual throat slitting.
Because it indicates that stunning is not necessarily superior is there is a positive risk of improper application of stunning.
So your argument is that since stunning might be done incorrectly, and incorrect stunning is less humane than correct stunning, then stunning should not be used.
But wouldn't the same ninja butchers that currently kill cows in their ninja way be doing the (now) ninja stunning, and hence could not possibly make a mistake?
And barring that, wouldn't you need to show that the stunning is done incorrectly a pretty significant amount of time in order to claim that overall stunning actually results in an increase in pain/stress? Are you making such a claim, and if so what data do you have to back it up?
Personally, I think worrying all that much about how much pain animals you are killing in order to eat are in is a bit silly in general...
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 09:22:46 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 09:17:30 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 09:15:19 AM
http://Norwegian Food Safety Authority (http://www.mattilsynet.no/portal/page?_pageid=54,40103&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&language=english), get going with your personal attacks.
Attacks on the personal morality of Mohammed are a perfectly counter to the appeal to the authority of Mohammed, which is precisely what the muslim argument for halal is.
You have no ideas beyond Norwegian food safety authority?
When it comes to animal welfare and the treatment of animals during slaughter, yes.
The Norwegian food safety authority deals with domesticated animal welfare and regulates Veterinarians working with farm animals as well, strange as that might be. I could refer to the equivalent bodies for most of Europe. I do not refer to Sven the Seasick.
Does the Norwegian food safety authority cover the clubbing of baby seals and whaling? Not the most humane thing I can think of. In most EU countries they still castrate pigs (which has to be very, very painful). They also cut off the tails (which is illegal, but widely practiced. In 2007 the EU found that 90% of piglets had their tails cut off despite it being made illegal in 2003).
Quote from: Valmy on June 17, 2011, 08:34:19 AM
My main issue with Mohammed is that he fought a war, which doesn't strike me as very spiritual, rather than some sort of trumped up charges on his personal life.
On the other hand, your idea as to what seems spiritual is rather suspect.
Quote from: DGuller on June 17, 2011, 08:59:12 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 16, 2011, 05:03:52 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 16, 2011, 04:59:00 PM
Not really sure how this is relevant cosidering the the proposed change is to require stunning prior to any ritual throat slitting.
Because it indicates that stunning is not necessarily superior is there is a positive risk of improper application of stunning.
That's a very shoddy argument. By that logic, wearing a seatbelt is not necessarily superior to not wearing one, because in some rare cases you're better off being ejected from the car rather than remaining strapped to it.
You cannot compare methods by taking the best case of one against the worst case of another. There is a reason we have a concept of averages and expectation.
The real issue here is whether halal or kosher slaughter is so sub-optimal as to rate concern. It could well be that one or the other is superior, but that the difference between stunning and bleeding isn't really all that much to be fussed about.
So far, I'm seeing a lot of assertion that halal/kosher is "torture" while stunning by bolt gun or electrocution isn't, but no actual proof of it. Seems that this is the central point, so there ought to be some sort of scientific proof of the assertion, right?
Quote from: Martinus on June 17, 2011, 01:32:17 AM
But (thank God) this is not what freedom of religion means in Europe.
Europe is a pretty big geographical entity and not all countries take the view that the Dutch are taking now. But it is true that some countries have taken positions inconsistent with meaningful free exercise - the French scarf ban is one example.
For some "freedom" means supporting the freedom of oneself or people like oneself. But true freedom means supporting the freedom of all, even those whose practices and beliefs seem strange or even repugnant. Liberty that just protects the majority is meaningless.
QuoteThat would be against the rule of separation of church and state (unlike in the US, it means more than just a prohibition against establishing a state church here).
First of all, anti-establishment in the US means far more than a prohibition of an actual state Church - since you have posted in threads in the past that discuss US court rulings on this concept, your ignorance of the fact is puzzling.
Second, apparently anti-establishment means less than that in Europe as some European countries continue to have established state churches . . .
Quote from: Malthus on June 17, 2011, 09:41:22 AM
So far, I'm seeing a lot of assertion that halal/kosher is "torture" while stunning by bolt gun or electrocution isn't, but no actual proof of it. Seems that this is the central point, so there ought to be some sort of scientific proof of the assertion, right?
Isn't the burden of proof on those who are demanding the exemption from the general law?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 09:35:40 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 09:22:46 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 09:17:30 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 09:15:19 AM
http://Norwegian Food Safety Authority (http://www.mattilsynet.no/portal/page?_pageid=54,40103&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&language=english), get going with your personal attacks.
Attacks on the personal morality of Mohammed are a perfectly counter to the appeal to the authority of Mohammed, which is precisely what the muslim argument for halal is.
You have no ideas beyond Norwegian food safety authority?
When it comes to animal welfare and the treatment of animals during slaughter, yes.
The Norwegian food safety authority deals with domesticated animal welfare and regulates Veterinarians working with farm animals as well, strange as that might be. I could refer to the equivalent bodies for most of Europe. I do not refer to Sven the Seasick.
Does the Norwegian food safety authority cover the clubbing of baby seals and whaling? Not the most humane thing I can think of. In most EU countries they still castrate pigs (which has to be very, very painful). They also cut off the tails (which is illegal, but widely practiced. In 2007 the EU found that 90% of piglets had their tails cut off despite it being made illegal in 2003).
Hunting marine mammals is not regulated in the same way as slaughter of domesticated animals. Docking tails (both for dogs and pigs) is illegal in Norway. I don't know about gelding pigs, but I know they do geld horses.
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2011, 09:33:47 AM
So your argument is that since stunning might be done incorrectly, and incorrect stunning is less humane than correct stunning, then stunning should not be used.
But wouldn't the same ninja butchers that currently kill cows in their ninja way be doing the (now) ninja stunning, and hence could not possibly make a mistake?
The kosher butchers wouldn't be doing any stunning, because stunning isn't kosher under the orthodox rules. They will just leave the Netherlands and do their work someplace else.
Quote from: Martinus on June 17, 2011, 01:32:17 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 16, 2011, 06:34:05 PM
My own personal opinion is that government should make reasonable accommodation to religious practice.
But (thank God) this is not what freedom of religion means in Europe. It means you can profess your belief in a deity or deities (although also with restrictions, e.g. when you are a public official) and you can worship your deity or deities, including together with fellow believers. You do not get special exceptions from laws applicable to everyone. That would be against the rule of separation of church and state (unlike in the US, it means more than just a prohibition against establishing a state church here).
Really?
I find that somewhat hard to believe.
So observant Jews are expected to attend work or school on high holidays? Religious conscientous objectors to compulsory military service are not allowed or excused? No accomodations are made to muslims fasting during Ramadan?
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2011, 09:44:02 AM
Isn't the burden of proof on those who are demanding the exemption from the general law?
The debate in this country has always been between those that take the view above, and those that take the view that the government should have some compelling reason to enact regulations that significantly burden the practice of one's religion.
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2011, 09:44:02 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 17, 2011, 09:41:22 AM
So far, I'm seeing a lot of assertion that halal/kosher is "torture" while stunning by bolt gun or electrocution isn't, but no actual proof of it. Seems that this is the central point, so there ought to be some sort of scientific proof of the assertion, right?
Isn't the burden of proof on those who are demanding the exemption from the general law?
Surely the burden of proof is on the person proposing the general law in the first place, that the law (admitting no exceptions) is truly a necessary imposition on one's freedom to practice a trade one way or the other?
In short, if the goal is 'to prevent excessive or undue pain to an animal in slaughtering', is the best, least freedom-intrusive method of achieving that goal to say 'you must do your job in X manner'?
If so, some proof that X manner is indeed the only way to achieve the goal is required, right?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 17, 2011, 09:48:26 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2011, 09:33:47 AM
So your argument is that since stunning might be done incorrectly, and incorrect stunning is less humane than correct stunning, then stunning should not be used.
But wouldn't the same ninja butchers that currently kill cows in their ninja way be doing the (now) ninja stunning, and hence could not possibly make a mistake?
The kosher butchers wouldn't be doing any stunning, because stunning isn't kosher under the orthodox rules. They will just leave the Netherlands and do their work someplace else.
So the argument then becomes "This should be legal, because if it isn't, we won't do it anymore".
Sounds less than compelling to me.
I suspect that what would actually happen is some group of kosher butchers would suddenly find that in fact stunning isn't to forbidden as they once thought and set up shop selling kosher meat that has been stunned.
Quote from: Barrister on June 17, 2011, 09:48:56 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 17, 2011, 01:32:17 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 16, 2011, 06:34:05 PM
My own personal opinion is that government should make reasonable accommodation to religious practice.
But (thank God) this is not what freedom of religion means in Europe. It means you can profess your belief in a deity or deities (although also with restrictions, e.g. when you are a public official) and you can worship your deity or deities, including together with fellow believers. You do not get special exceptions from laws applicable to everyone. That would be against the rule of separation of church and state (unlike in the US, it means more than just a prohibition against establishing a state church here).
Really?
I find that somewhat hard to believe.
So observant Jews are expected to attend work or school on high holidays? Religious conscientous objectors to compulsory military service are not allowed or excused? No accomodations are made to muslims fasting during Ramadan?
Do we do any of those things? I've never seen any of my employers or schools accomodate anyone for Ramadan or any Jewish holidays.
Altho, I don't recall ever having a jewish coworker or fellow students.
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2011, 09:44:02 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 17, 2011, 09:41:22 AM
So far, I'm seeing a lot of assertion that halal/kosher is "torture" while stunning by bolt gun or electrocution isn't, but no actual proof of it. Seems that this is the central point, so there ought to be some sort of scientific proof of the assertion, right?
Isn't the burden of proof on those who are demanding the exemption from the general law?
I would think that the burden of proof is on those who are seeking to change or ban a long-standing practice.
Quote from: Neil on June 17, 2011, 09:37:26 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 17, 2011, 08:34:19 AM
My main issue with Mohammed is that he fought a war, which doesn't strike me as very spiritual, rather than some sort of trumped up charges on his personal life.
On the other hand, your idea as to what seems spiritual is rather suspect.
Nonsense it is pretty widely accepted that violence is not a very spiritual activity.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 17, 2011, 09:50:31 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2011, 09:44:02 AM
Isn't the burden of proof on those who are demanding the exemption from the general law?
The debate in this country has always been between those that take the view above, and those that take the view that the government should have some compelling reason to enact regulations that significantly burden the practice of one's religion.
The religious aspect doesn't even necessarily come into it. Assume I just plain wanted to slaughter animals in the halal manner, but I had zero religious reason to do it.
To my mind, a regulation prohibiting that would be excessive
if there was not strong scientific evidence that halal slaughter actually and in fact was substantially inferior in the way alleged - causing excessive suffering to animals.
So far, I've seen exactly
nothing in the way of evidence that this is true - other than argument-by-assertion, argument-by-insult, and circular arguments such as "Norway has this regulation, so it must be right".
That, before we even get to the question of whether a 'religious exemption' is reasonable.
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 17, 2011, 09:52:42 AM
Do we do any of those things? I've never seen any of my employers or schools accomodate anyone for Ramadan or any Jewish holidays.
Altho, I don't recall ever having a jewish coworker or fellow students.
a toronto university (york?) used to be shut down on jewish holidays becasue traditionally most teachers and a good chuck of the students were jewish. not so now, but when they tried to get rid of that rule there was a big stink (not sure if they succeeded)
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 09:46:16 AM
Hunting marine mammals is not regulated in the same way as slaughter of domesticated animals. Docking tails (both for dogs and pigs) is illegal in Norway. I don't know about gelding pigs, but I know they do geld horses.
Are these actions humane? Gelding of pigs is widely practiced in the EU (though not Norway). It would seem that it is far more "torturous" then bleeding out. And though Docking is illegal, it is still widely practiced. Our Euro friends could crack down on this behavior but it wouldn't have the benefit of harassing religious minorities.
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2011, 09:51:56 AM
I suspect that what would actually happen is some group of kosher butchers would suddenly find that in fact stunning isn't to forbidden as they once thought and set up shop selling kosher meat that has been stunned.
A very small number might, but most won't. The reason is that what the butchers think isn't that relevant. What matters is what their observant Jewish customers think. And if the latter are being told by their rabbis that that stunned meat isn't kosher, they won't buy it. They will buy it imported from Belgium or Germany or wherever else non-stunning is permitted.
Quote from: Malthus on June 17, 2011, 09:50:57 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2011, 09:44:02 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 17, 2011, 09:41:22 AM
So far, I'm seeing a lot of assertion that halal/kosher is "torture" while stunning by bolt gun or electrocution isn't, but no actual proof of it. Seems that this is the central point, so there ought to be some sort of scientific proof of the assertion, right?
Isn't the burden of proof on those who are demanding the exemption from the general law?
Surely the burden of proof is on the person proposing the general law in the first place, that the law (admitting no exceptions) is truly a necessary imposition on one's freedom to practice a trade one way or the other?
Indeed - and presumably that burden has been met, since there is in fact a general law that demands that animals be stunned before being killed. I think it is reasonable to presume that in fact whatever necessary burden needed to be met to pass said law was met already.
Quote
In short, if the goal is 'to prevent excessive or undue pain to an animal in slaughtering', is the best, least freedom-intrusive method of achieving that goal to say 'you must do your job in X manner'?
Very likely, yes - hence the myriad of laws that exist in many countries governing the manner in which animals can be slaughtered. Now, I am sure you can make arguments about particualr methods and their success at achieving the goals in question - but those arguments are not religious in nature, but presumably scientific.
Quote
If so, some proof that X manner is indeed the only way to achieve the goal is required, right?
Not at all - just evidence that X manner is better than ~X manner. And presumably that proof has been supplied to a degree that the legislature found satisfactory in general. In this case, it is that stunning is more humane than not stunning.
The argument now is whether some group ought to get an exemption to that general law. If in fact said group can prove that their method is just as humane, and hence their accommodation for their religious beliefs is not significant compared to the imposition on their freedom, then I would support that exemption.
But the burden of proof is on them to show that they can achieve the same level of humaneness without the need for stunning.
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 17, 2011, 09:52:42 AM
Quote from: Barrister on June 17, 2011, 09:48:56 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 17, 2011, 01:32:17 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 16, 2011, 06:34:05 PM
My own personal opinion is that government should make reasonable accommodation to religious practice.
But (thank God) this is not what freedom of religion means in Europe. It means you can profess your belief in a deity or deities (although also with restrictions, e.g. when you are a public official) and you can worship your deity or deities, including together with fellow believers. You do not get special exceptions from laws applicable to everyone. That would be against the rule of separation of church and state (unlike in the US, it means more than just a prohibition against establishing a state church here).
Really?
I find that somewhat hard to believe.
So observant Jews are expected to attend work or school on high holidays? Religious conscientous objectors to compulsory military service are not allowed or excused? No accomodations are made to muslims fasting during Ramadan?
Do we do any of those things? I've never seen any of my employers or schools accomodate anyone for Ramadan or any Jewish holidays.
Altho, I don't recall ever having a jewish coworker or fellow students.
The Jewish question - sure we do. Jewish kids would skip school for the major holidays, and get dereffed exams if their exam fell on a holiday. I think an orthodox jew could even be excused from writing exams on sabbath (Saturday).
Quote from: Valmy on June 17, 2011, 09:56:28 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 17, 2011, 09:37:26 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 17, 2011, 08:34:19 AM
My main issue with Mohammed is that he fought a war, which doesn't strike me as very spiritual, rather than some sort of trumped up charges on his personal life.
On the other hand, your idea as to what seems spiritual is rather suspect.
Nonsense it is pretty widely accepted that violence is not a very spiritual activity.
Many disagree, most notably various flavours of 'holy warriors'. And given that one of the times when we are most in touch with our basic nature when we are doing violence, I can see an argument for it.
Quote from: Valmy on June 17, 2011, 09:56:28 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 17, 2011, 09:37:26 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 17, 2011, 08:34:19 AM
My main issue with Mohammed is that he fought a war, which doesn't strike me as very spiritual, rather than some sort of trumped up charges on his personal life.
On the other hand, your idea as to what seems spiritual is rather suspect.
Nonsense it is pretty widely accepted that violence is not a very spiritual activity.
I suspect that's a very Christian ideal of spiritual.
As you very well know the concept of Jihad is a strong part of muslim spirituality.
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 17, 2011, 09:52:42 AM
Do we do any of those things? I've never seen any of my employers or schools accomodate anyone for Ramadan or any Jewish holidays.
Altho, I don't recall ever having a jewish coworker or fellow students.
It's the case here. Jews got off school on their holy days. When I was in school, the Cafeteria offered a non-meat alternative during Lent for Catholics. I doubt it took to much effort.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 17, 2011, 09:57:50 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2011, 09:51:56 AM
I suspect that what would actually happen is some group of kosher butchers would suddenly find that in fact stunning isn't to forbidden as they once thought and set up shop selling kosher meat that has been stunned.
A very small number might, but most won't. The reason is that what the butchers think isn't that relevant. What matters is what their observant Jewish customers think. And if the latter are being told by their rabbis that that stunned meat isn't kosher, they won't buy it. They will buy it imported from Belgium or Germany or wherever else non-stunning is permitted.
Sure, that is the story given. And that is the basic story everytime some religious groups insists that their sacred cow not be killed. If you let blacks into the military, why, all the white boys will quit. If you let let gay people get married, then marriage will be destroyed. If you allow contraceptives to be sold, then everyone will have sex all the time.
What actually happens is that people typically don't care much, and all it takes is a minority of rabbis saying "Yeah, we did some study, and it turns out it isn't such a big deal..." and then in a generation or so, at the most, people will look back and chuckle about how worked up they got over crap like this.
And some ultra-ultra-ULTRA-orthodox splinter will break off espousing their absolute purity and they will go to the expense and trouble if importing their meat from wherever. Shrug.
I mean really, that is what we have now with the Orthodox anyway, right? People holding on to some semi-arbitrary set of rules the rest to the group has decided isn't really important anymore.
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2011, 09:58:12 AM
. I think it is reasonable to presume that in fact whatever necessary burden needed to be met to pass said law was met already.
The only burden required to pass a law is to get a majority in the legislature. Such a thing is easily achievable even in the absence of any scientific basis.
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2011, 09:58:12 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 17, 2011, 09:50:57 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2011, 09:44:02 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 17, 2011, 09:41:22 AM
So far, I'm seeing a lot of assertion that halal/kosher is "torture" while stunning by bolt gun or electrocution isn't, but no actual proof of it. Seems that this is the central point, so there ought to be some sort of scientific proof of the assertion, right?
Isn't the burden of proof on those who are demanding the exemption from the general law?
Surely the burden of proof is on the person proposing the general law in the first place, that the law (admitting no exceptions) is truly a necessary imposition on one's freedom to practice a trade one way or the other?
Indeed - and presumably that burden has been met, since there is in fact a general law that demands that animals be stunned before being killed. I think it is reasonable to presume that in fact whatever necessary burden needed to be met to pass said law was met already.
Quote
In short, if the goal is 'to prevent excessive or undue pain to an animal in slaughtering', is the best, least freedom-intrusive method of achieving that goal to say 'you must do your job in X manner'?
Very likely, yes - hence the myriad of laws that exist in many countries governing the manner in which animals can be slaughtered. Now, I am sure you can make arguments about particualr methods and their success at achieving the goals in question - but those arguments are not religious in nature, but presumably scientific.
Quote
If so, some proof that X manner is indeed the only way to achieve the goal is required, right?
Not at all - just evidence that X manner is better than ~X manner. And presumably that proof has been supplied to a degree that the legislature found satisfactory in general. In this case, it is that stunning is more humane than not stunning.
The argument now is whether some group ought to get an exemption to that general law. If in fact said group can prove that their method is just as humane, and hence their accommodation for their religious beliefs is not significant compared to the imposition on their freedom, then I would support that exemption.
But the burden of proof is on them to show that they can achieve the same level of humaneness without the need for stunning.
You are presuming the very question under analysis - which is simply argument by circularity. Why on earth should I assume that because a law was passed, it had a logical and rational reason for it? Do you use this "logic" on drug laws?
Also, note that the law in the US is different, and allows for halal slaughter. How does your presumption fare, when laws in different jurisdictions contradict? Is something "humane" in the US, and "inhumane" in Norway?
Better to ask to see the proof, rather than simply assume it exists, I would have though.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 17, 2011, 10:02:43 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2011, 09:58:12 AM
. I think it is reasonable to presume that in fact whatever necessary burden needed to be met to pass said law was met already.
The only burden required to pass a law is to get a majority in the legislature. Such a thing is easily achievable even in the absence of any scientific basis.
So? Now your argument is that in fact the law requiring stunning doesn't actually work to do what it is intended to do?
Again, burden of proof for that is on you, as the party demanding an exemption from the law. The law exists, so apparently some burden of proof was met, even if you don't think it is an acceptable one (although I suspect your decision to decide this one is not acceptable is strictly based on the outcome being one you don't like - I think plenty of research has been done on animal cruelty).
Quote from: Barrister on June 17, 2011, 10:01:00 AM
I suspect that's a very Christian ideal of spiritual.
As you very well know the concept of Jihad is a strong part of muslim spirituality.
And even then it discounts a lot of more militant Christian thinking. It's a very New Age spirituality.
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2011, 10:02:23 AM
What actually happens is that people typically don't care much, and all it takes is a minority of rabbis saying "Yeah, we did some study, and it turns out it isn't such a big deal..." and then in a generation or so, at the most, people will look back and chuckle about how worked up they got over crap like this.
And some ultra-ultra-ULTRA-orthodox splinter will break off espousing their absolute purity and they will go to the expense and trouble if importing their meat from wherever. Shrug.
I mean really, that is what we have now with the Orthodox anyway, right? People holding on to some semi-arbitrary set of rules the rest to the group has decided isn't really important anymore.
The Orthodox are now the fatest growing denomination within Judaism so the scenario you paint of easy accomodation is just not so.
The orthodox have been stubbornly adhering to strange rules for almost 2000 years, including at times when doing so meant getting torched. I don't think you grasp the mentality at work. If there is a splinter, the splinter will be the few who choose to change the religious rule to fit the secular rule. The majority will dig in.
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2011, 10:05:42 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 17, 2011, 10:02:43 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2011, 09:58:12 AM
. I think it is reasonable to presume that in fact whatever necessary burden needed to be met to pass said law was met already.
The only burden required to pass a law is to get a majority in the legislature. Such a thing is easily achievable even in the absence of any scientific basis.
So? Now your argument is that in fact the law requiring stunning doesn't actually work to do what it is intended to do?
Again, burden of proof for that is on you, as the party demanding an exemption from the law. The law exists, so apparently some burden of proof was met, even if you don't think it is an acceptable one (although I suspect your decision to decide this one is not acceptable is strictly based on the outcome being one you don't like - I think plenty of research has been done on animal cruelty).
The argument is that the law requiring stunning is over-intrusive. Yours seems to be that regulations are in general presumptively not over-intrusive, which I find a really odd position for you to take.
Quote from: Barrister on June 17, 2011, 10:01:00 AM
I suspect that's a very Christian ideal of spiritual.
As you very well know the concept of Jihad is a strong part of muslim spirituality.
Which is supposed to an inner struggle against evil. There are lots of religions that hold peace, both inner and externally, as being a holy thing.
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2011, 10:05:42 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 17, 2011, 10:02:43 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2011, 09:58:12 AM
. I think it is reasonable to presume that in fact whatever necessary burden needed to be met to pass said law was met already.
The only burden required to pass a law is to get a majority in the legislature. Such a thing is easily achievable even in the absence of any scientific basis.
So? Now your argument is that in fact the law requiring stunning doesn't actually work to do what it is intended to do?
Again, burden of proof for that is on you, as the party demanding an exemption from the law. The law exists, so apparently some burden of proof was met, even if you don't think it is an acceptable one (although I suspect your decision to decide this one is not acceptable is strictly based on the outcome being one you don't like - I think plenty of research has been done on animal cruelty).
Berkut, in my experience in court, where we actually have formalized rules about who has the burden of proof and in what situation, I have found that arguing based on burden of proof to be an argument of last resort. The judge wants to know what the facts are, and simply telling them that "well the other side didn't prove it" doesn't get me very far.
When it comes to arguing public policy, which does not have those formalized rules regarding burden of proof, I really don't think trying to argue burden of proof is a very useful means of looking at a question.
Quote from: Valmy on June 17, 2011, 10:10:30 AM
Quote from: Barrister on June 17, 2011, 10:01:00 AM
I suspect that's a very Christian ideal of spiritual.
As you very well know the concept of Jihad is a strong part of muslim spirituality.
Which is supposed to an inner struggle against evil. There are lots of religions that hold peace, both inner and externally, as being a holy thing.
That's one interpretation of jihad, and from what I understand it is far from universally accepted.
Quote from: Neil on June 17, 2011, 10:06:48 AM
And even then it discounts a lot of more militant Christian thinking. It's a very New Age spirituality.
New Age is not very new then.
Quote from: Malthus on June 17, 2011, 10:03:23 AM
You are presuming the very question under analysis - which is simply argument by circularity. Why on earth should I assume that because a law was passed, it had a logical and rational reason for it?
Why should you assume otherwise? I can certainly be convinced that some law was poorly thought out, but I am not going to assume it is without some evidence.
Quote
Do you use this "logic" on drug laws?
Absiolutely. IMO, there is considerable and convincing evidence that many of our laws in regards to the enforcement of drug laws have largely failed to achieve what they intended to do, or have excessive secondary costs associated with them.
But I *certainly* presume that the burden of proof is on those claiming that drug laws should be changed. I think in many cases that burden has been met.
Quote
Also, note that the law in the US is different, and allows for halal slaughter. How does your presumption fare, when laws in different jurisdictions contradict? Is something "humane" in the US, and "inhumane" in Norway?
Again, I have no personal issue with these laws in general, no matter which way they go. But of course it is the case that differing jurisdictions define "humane" in differing ways, and what one society finds humane may not be humane in another. I am quite certain, for example, that there are plenty of countries that engage in plenty of activities that I would find horribly inhumane. That doesn't mean that I think those practices ought to be legal here as well, since some other society finds them acceptable.
Why should the Netherlands be any different? The Chinese do things Americans would never countenance, and the Americans may do things the Dutch do not tolerate. So what?
Quote
Better to ask to see the proof, rather than simply assume it exists, I would have though.
There is a lot of evidence out there about animal suffering under slaughter. It is hardly just assumed. If you want to argue that hallal butchering is just as humane as non-hallal butchering with stunning, then go right ahead. Hell, I would probably come down on your side.
What I won't do is just assume that you don't even have to bother making the argument to begin with, or that illogical arguments are convincing (like comparing botched stunning with perfect ninja hallal butchering, and then asking us to just assume that there is enough botched stunning that it overall is actually LESS humane than not using stunning at all!).
Quote from: Barrister on June 17, 2011, 10:12:55 AM
That's one interpretation of jihad, and from what I understand it is far from universally accepted.
My views do not necessarily reflect the views held by every single person on the planet no. But I think they are very widely held both now and historically.
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2011, 10:05:42 AM
So? Now your argument is that in fact the law requiring stunning doesn't actually work to do what it is intended to do?
The only point is that the fact it was passed into law in itself says nothing about its scientific validity.
I have already posted evidence in this thread indicating that kosher-style ritual slaughter can be just as humane as the stunning methods. I have seen nothing to the contrary.
QuoteAgain, burden of proof for that is on you, as the party demanding an exemption from the law.
I don't agree. As stated above, I side with those who take the position that if the Free Exercise clause is to be effective, laws of formal general applicability must make reasonable accomodation to religious practice.
So what is the argument of the Jewish lawyers? Are you arguing that the general law about stunning is stupid and was unjustified in the first place, and that it was a mistake to enact it? Or are you arguing that the law must have exemptions for Jews and Muslims?
Quote from: Malthus on June 17, 2011, 10:09:21 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2011, 10:05:42 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 17, 2011, 10:02:43 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2011, 09:58:12 AM
. I think it is reasonable to presume that in fact whatever necessary burden needed to be met to pass said law was met already.
The only burden required to pass a law is to get a majority in the legislature. Such a thing is easily achievable even in the absence of any scientific basis.
So? Now your argument is that in fact the law requiring stunning doesn't actually work to do what it is intended to do?
Again, burden of proof for that is on you, as the party demanding an exemption from the law. The law exists, so apparently some burden of proof was met, even if you don't think it is an acceptable one (although I suspect your decision to decide this one is not acceptable is strictly based on the outcome being one you don't like - I think plenty of research has been done on animal cruelty).
The argument is that the law requiring stunning is over-intrusive. Yours seems to be that regulations are in general presumptively not over-intrusive, which I find a really odd position for you to take.
My position is that if the law already exists, then we should presume that it has passed whatever bar is necessary when weighing its obtrusiveness vs its utility.
I think any other position would be rather odd to take - should we just assume that some law fails that metric, and hence ought to be changed?
My position as someone who in general thinks that the bar should be pretty high, and also thinks that many existing laws fail to meet that bar is based on the reasoned evaluation of those laws, their usefulness, and their intrusiveness. Just because I think the burden of proof has been met in many cases of existing laws does not mean I think that there ought not to be said burden of proof on those asking for the laws to be changed.
Now, the reason many of these laws exist is that when they were passed, THEY did not satisfy the burden of proof placed on them to show that the law was both necessary and not an unreasonable imposition on freedom. And that is unfortunate. But in this case, I haven't even seen that argument made. Just assumed.
Quote from: Malthus on June 17, 2011, 09:50:57 AM
Surely the burden of proof is on the person proposing the general law in the first place, that the law (admitting no exceptions) is truly a necessary imposition on one's freedom to practice a trade one way or the other?
In short, if the goal is 'to prevent excessive or undue pain to an animal in slaughtering', is the best, least freedom-intrusive method of achieving that goal to say 'you must do your job in X manner'?
If so, some proof that X manner is indeed the only way to achieve the goal is required, right?
Well, no. As with all regulations the permitted activity is specified, anything outside the regulation is banned. This is the case regardless of any alternatives which might be just as good. It is not up to the state to disprove all possible alternatives to the procedures complying with regulations. You are not free to conclude that an activity not consistent with regulations meets the goals of the regulations and ignore them (e.g. my magick mormon underwear protects my balls from radiation).
Quote from: DGuller on June 17, 2011, 10:16:02 AM
So what is the argument of the Jewish lawyers? Are you arguing that the general law about stunning is stupid and was unjustified in the first place, and that it was a mistake to enact it? Or are you arguing that the law must have exemptions for Jews and Muslims?
Arguement seems to be that stunning laws are better then nothing (old days of sledge hammers and carving up still living cows), but not necessarily better then halal/kosher. Without proven evidence that stunning is better then kosher/halal then there's no reason to ban halal/kosher besides hating brown/jewish people. I side with the jewish and nominally uke lawyers.
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2011, 10:02:23 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 17, 2011, 09:57:50 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2011, 09:51:56 AM
I suspect that what would actually happen is some group of kosher butchers would suddenly find that in fact stunning isn't to forbidden as they once thought and set up shop selling kosher meat that has been stunned.
A very small number might, but most won't. The reason is that what the butchers think isn't that relevant. What matters is what their observant Jewish customers think. And if the latter are being told by their rabbis that that stunned meat isn't kosher, they won't buy it. They will buy it imported from Belgium or Germany or wherever else non-stunning is permitted.
Sure, that is the story given. And that is the basic story everytime some religious groups insists that their sacred cow not be killed. If you let blacks into the military, why, all the white boys will quit. If you let let gay people get married, then marriage will be destroyed. If you allow contraceptives to be sold, then everyone will have sex all the time.
What actually happens is that people typically don't care much, and all it takes is a minority of rabbis saying "Yeah, we did some study, and it turns out it isn't such a big deal..." and then in a generation or so, at the most, people will look back and chuckle about how worked up they got over crap like this.
And some ultra-ultra-ULTRA-orthodox splinter will break off espousing their absolute purity and they will go to the expense and trouble if importing their meat from wherever. Shrug.
I mean really, that is what we have now with the Orthodox anyway, right? People holding on to some semi-arbitrary set of rules the rest to the group has decided isn't really important anymore.
You really expect people to just suddenly stop a practice that has gone on for thousands of year just like that? Kosher butcher shops have been banned before...
Looking around the Internet, apparently a study was done at Cornell Univeristy about Kosher slaughter and found that typically the animal lost consciousness within a few second of the initial cut. It doesn't seem to be as "tortuous" as some would have us believe.
Quote from: HVC on June 17, 2011, 10:20:07 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 17, 2011, 10:16:02 AM
So what is the argument of the Jewish lawyers? Are you arguing that the general law about stunning is stupid and was unjustified in the first place, and that it was a mistake to enact it? Or are you arguing that the law must have exemptions for Jews and Muslims?
Arguement seems to be that stunning laws are better then nothing (old days of sledge hammers and carving up still living cows), but not necessarily better then halal/kosher. Without proven evidence that stunning is better then kosher/halal then there's no reason to ban halal/kosher besides hating brown/jewish people. I side with the jewish lawyers.
Why is it people are afraid to disagree with jew lawyers, but not uke lawyers? :(
Quote from: HVC on June 17, 2011, 08:58:22 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 17, 2011, 08:55:32 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 08:53:04 AM
I don't base my view on slaughter on the divine commands of thor as relvealed to us by Erik the Assraped
Iceland would be so much more awesome if you did.
could have gotten out of this whole bankruptcy thing by just raiding england. maybe they should follow in the forebearers train of thouhgt :D
Well, in truth, they have pretty much raided English parishes (at least the ones foolish enough to keep their money in Icelandic banks) and now refuse to give it back, so maybe there is some truth in it. :P
Quote from: Barrister on June 17, 2011, 10:21:33 AM
Quote from: HVC on June 17, 2011, 10:20:07 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 17, 2011, 10:16:02 AM
So what is the argument of the Jewish lawyers? Are you arguing that the general law about stunning is stupid and was unjustified in the first place, and that it was a mistake to enact it? Or are you arguing that the law must have exemptions for Jews and Muslims?
Arguement seems to be that stunning laws are better then nothing (old days of sledge hammers and carving up still living cows), but not necessarily better then halal/kosher. Without proven evidence that stunning is better then kosher/halal then there's no reason to ban halal/kosher besides hating brown/jewish people. I side with the jewish lawyers.
Why is it people are afraid to disagree with jew lawyers, but not uke lawyers? :(
Your drug stance has tainted your lawyer for justice image :contract: :D
I amended my post to show i care :P
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2011, 10:13:15 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 17, 2011, 10:03:23 AM
You are presuming the very question under analysis - which is simply argument by circularity. Why on earth should I assume that because a law was passed, it had a logical and rational reason for it?
Why should you assume otherwise? I can certainly be convinced that some law was poorly thought out, but I am not going to assume it is without some evidence.
Quote
Do you use this "logic" on drug laws?
Absiolutely. IMO, there is considerable and convincing evidence that many of our laws in regards to the enforcement of drug laws have largely failed to achieve what they intended to do, or have excessive secondary costs associated with them.
But I *certainly* presume that the burden of proof is on those claiming that drug laws should be changed. I think in many cases that burden has been met.
Quote
Also, note that the law in the US is different, and allows for halal slaughter. How does your presumption fare, when laws in different jurisdictions contradict? Is something "humane" in the US, and "inhumane" in Norway?
Again, I have no personal issue with these laws in general, no matter which way they go. But of course it is the case that differing jurisdictions define "humane" in differing ways, and what one society finds humane may not be humane in another. I am quite certain, for example, that there are plenty of countries that engage in plenty of activities that I would find horribly inhumane. That doesn't mean that I think those practices ought to be legal here as well, since some other society finds them acceptable.
Why should the Netherlands be any different? The Chinese do things Americans would never countenance, and the Americans may do things the Dutch do not tolerate. So what?
Quote
Better to ask to see the proof, rather than simply assume it exists, I would have though.
There is a lot of evidence out there about animal suffering under slaughter. It is hardly just assumed. If you want to argue that hallal butchering is just as humane as non-hallal butchering with stunning, then go right ahead. Hell, I would probably come down on your side.
What I won't do is just assume that you don't even have to bother making the argument to begin with, or that illogical arguments are convincing (like comparing botched stunning with perfect ninja hallal butchering, and then asking us to just assume that there is enough botched stunning that it overall is actually LESS humane than not using stunning at all!).
Huh? I'm saying that I'd like to see SOME EVIDENCE that the alleged "problem" exists. So far, none has been produced in this long-ass thread.
If such evidence exists and there is "a lot" of it, surely it would not be difficult to produce? If so, why is no-one producing any?
I'm not "assuming" that the law was poorly thought-out, I'm asking for some evidence that the "problem" under analysis is really a "problem".
The other alternative - that it is hysteria whipped up by PETA types and xenophobes - gains plausibility, if the *problem*
cannot be demonstrated to actually, you know, exist.Ninja rabbis need not enter into it.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment link=topic=5349.msg273236#msg273236I have already posted evidence in this thread indicating that kosher-style ritual slaughter can be just as humane as the stunning methods. I have seen nothing to the contrary.
I have only seen evidence that botched stunning is worse than perfect kosher-style slaying. That's not even weak, that's just pathetic from a logical point of view. Any good idea executed poorly can have worse results than bad ideas mitigated by perfect execution.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 10:21:09 AM
Looking around the Internet, apparently a study was done at Cornell Univeristy about Kosher slaughter and found that typically the animal lost consciousness within a few second of the initial cut. It doesn't seem to be as "tortuous" as some would have us believe.
I've seen some old school slaughters (rather similar to halal/kosher, except without the bleed out being as important). Animal (in this case pig) was out pretty fast.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 17, 2011, 10:15:36 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2011, 10:05:42 AM
So? Now your argument is that in fact the law requiring stunning doesn't actually work to do what it is intended to do?
The only point is that the fact it was passed into law in itself says nothing about its scientific validity.
I think the fact that it was passed says that at some point it was evaluated and deemed reasonable. You can disagree with that, but if so, you need to show that, not just assume it. It is the law as it exists.
Quote
I have already posted evidence in this thread indicating that kosher-style ritual slaughter can be just as humane as the stunning methods. I have seen nothing to the contrary.
And to the extent that you have done so, I think you make a good case.
Quote
QuoteAgain, burden of proof for that is on you, as the party demanding an exemption from the law.
I don't agree. As stated above, I side with those who take the position that if the Free Exercise clause is to be effective, laws of formal general applicability must make reasonable accomodation to religious practice.
No argument from me, except that I would place the burden on those asking for the exemption from an existing an generally applied law to show that
A) Their freedom is in fact significantly impacted, and
B) That the effect of the exemption will be minimal.
I actually think that in general those bars have been met, and have no real problem with the exemption. I just do NOT agree that we should give them a pass without any need to actually show that.
In general though, my personal view is that this is the kind of thing that is a gray area. I think if the law did not allow for kosher slaughter without stunning, the kosher people would not really be harmed much, despite their claims otherwise, but I also think that if the exemption is allowed, it is no big deal either.
I am pretty ok with the idea that this is the kind of thing that will see different levels of acceptability across different societies.
I am skeptical of the claim that those trying to not allow the exemption are motivated in any great part by racism or antisemitism. In fact, I find the argument itself pretty offensive.
Quote from: DGuller on June 17, 2011, 10:16:02 AM
So what is the argument of the Jewish lawyers? Are you arguing that the general law about stunning is stupid and was unjustified in the first place, and that it was a mistake to enact it? Or are you arguing that the law must have exemptions for Jews and Muslims?
As to question 1, it is reasonable for a state to pass laws regulating slaughter and it is also reasonable as a general matter to specify certain methods, including stunning, as part of such a law. But in the absence of good reasons to believe that kosher or hallal methods, if otherwise carried out in compliance with good practices, are totally inconsistent with the objective of limiting pain and cruelty, the law should make reasonable accomodation to religious practice.
Incidentally, I have no dog in this hunt. I don't keep kosher. I don't have any particular interest in defending the Orthodox position. From a personal perspective, I am more concerned about protecting against Establishment (eg forcing me to pay taxes to pursue a religious agenda I don't like) then promoting Free Exercise (protecting the freedom of others to pratice beliefs I don't agree with). But both are core principles of equal weight and importance in any system of government that claims to value religious liberty, and so consistency's sake requires I take both equally seriously, even if one doesn't provide me with a tangible personal benefit.
Quote from: DGuller on June 17, 2011, 10:16:02 AM
So what is the argument of the Jewish lawyers? Are you arguing that the general law about stunning is stupid and was unjustified in the first place, and that it was a mistake to enact it? Or are you arguing that the law must have exemptions for Jews and Muslims?
Argument is that the law is over-intrusive, and that there is no logical or science-based reason for it to be over-intrusive.
Or at least, none that have been actually shown to exist - except by assertion or presumption.
Quote from: Malthus on June 17, 2011, 10:28:39 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 17, 2011, 10:16:02 AM
So what is the argument of the Jewish lawyers? Are you arguing that the general law about stunning is stupid and was unjustified in the first place, and that it was a mistake to enact it? Or are you arguing that the law must have exemptions for Jews and Muslims?
Argument is that the law is over-intrusive, and that there is no logical or science-based reason for it to be over-intrusive.
Or at least, none that have been actually shown to exist - except by assertion or presumption.
And you would make this same argument about the law even if you were not Jewish yourself? Color me: skeptical.
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2011, 10:26:22 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 17, 2011, 10:15:36 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2011, 10:05:42 AM
So? Now your argument is that in fact the law requiring stunning doesn't actually work to do what it is intended to do?
The only point is that the fact it was passed into law in itself says nothing about its scientific validity.
I think the fact that it was passed says that at some point it was evaluated and deemed reasonable. You can disagree with that, but if so, you need to show that, not just assume it. It is the law as it exists.
Quote
I have already posted evidence in this thread indicating that kosher-style ritual slaughter can be just as humane as the stunning methods. I have seen nothing to the contrary.
And to the extent that you have done so, I think you make a good case.
Quote
QuoteAgain, burden of proof for that is on you, as the party demanding an exemption from the law.
I don't agree. As stated above, I side with those who take the position that if the Free Exercise clause is to be effective, laws of formal general applicability must make reasonable accomodation to religious practice.
No argument from me, except that I would place the burden on those asking for the exemption from an existing an generally applied law to show that
A) Their freedom is in fact significantly impacted, and
B) That the effect of the exemption will be minimal.
I actually think that in general those bars have been met, and have no real problem with the exemption. I just do NOT agree that we should give them a pass without any need to actually show that.
In general though, my personal view is that this is the kind of thing that is a gray area. I think if the law did not allow for kosher slaughter without stunning, the kosher people would not really be harmed much, despite their claims otherwise, but I also think that if the exemption is allowed, it is no big deal either.
I am pretty ok with the idea that this is the kind of thing that will see different levels of acceptability across different societies.
I am skeptical of the claim that those trying to not allow the exemption are motivated in any great part by racism or antisemitism. In fact, I find the argument itself pretty offensive.
The problem is that this is not a case where people are asking for a new "exemption" to an existing law, but one where people are asking to change an existing law to prohibit an activity that was formerly lawful.
Surely some sort of proof ought to be required that the change is necessary?
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2011, 10:30:44 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 17, 2011, 10:28:39 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 17, 2011, 10:16:02 AM
So what is the argument of the Jewish lawyers? Are you arguing that the general law about stunning is stupid and was unjustified in the first place, and that it was a mistake to enact it? Or are you arguing that the law must have exemptions for Jews and Muslims?
Argument is that the law is over-intrusive, and that there is no logical or science-based reason for it to be over-intrusive.
Or at least, none that have been actually shown to exist - except by assertion or presumption.
And you would make this same argument about the law even if you were not Jewish yourself? Color me: skeptical.
I know that Malthus has accepted the label of "Jewish lawyer" on the forum, but I don't think he even thinks of himself as Jewish - rather he just has a jewish mother.
In any event I am making the same argument, and I'm definitely not Jewish. :showoff:
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2011, 10:30:44 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 17, 2011, 10:28:39 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 17, 2011, 10:16:02 AM
So what is the argument of the Jewish lawyers? Are you arguing that the general law about stunning is stupid and was unjustified in the first place, and that it was a mistake to enact it? Or are you arguing that the law must have exemptions for Jews and Muslims?
Argument is that the law is over-intrusive, and that there is no logical or science-based reason for it to be over-intrusive.
Or at least, none that have been actually shown to exist - except by assertion or presumption.
And you would make this same argument about the law even if you were not Jewish yourself? Color me: skeptical.
Huh? I don't keep kosher.
I'd make exactly the same argument (and have) if the matter was halal only, or headscarves in France - and I'm not Muslim.
Would you be making these arguments if the laws in question did not attack your personal bugbear, religion? Colour me: skeptical.
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2011, 10:30:44 AM
And you would make this same argument about the law even if you were not Jewish yourself? Color me: skeptical.
i would, but i don't have a law background so i could be way off lol.
This thread shows that canadians are better people then both Europeans or americans :contract:
I'm assuming Minsky has a Canadian mother for the purposes of my argument :D
Quote from: Malthus on June 17, 2011, 09:56:40 AM
The religious aspect doesn't even necessarily come into it. Assume I just plain wanted to slaughter animals in the halal manner, but I had zero religious reason to do it.
To my mind, a regulation prohibiting that would be excessive if there was not strong scientific evidence that halal slaughter actually and in fact was substantially inferior in the way alleged - causing excessive suffering to animals.
So far, I've seen exactly nothing in the way of evidence that this is true - other than argument-by-assertion, argument-by-insult, and circular arguments such as "Norway has this regulation, so it must be right".
That, before we even get to the question of whether a 'religious exemption' is reasonable.
German Vets - Halal, Kosher Slaughter Unacceptable, say German Vets (http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,3474409,00.html)
British Vet and British Food Standards - Halal and Kosher slaughter 'must end' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2977086.stm)
etc.etc.
Quote from: Malthus on June 17, 2011, 10:33:29 AM
Would you be making these arguments if the laws in question did not attack your personal bugbear, religion? Colour me: skeptical.
Religious Bugbears are pretty tough.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fold.enworld.org%2FPozas%2FPictures%2FFDP%2Fbugbear_shaman.jpg&hash=a536ff0edd34454d4b5ca6bc5c35a3dbee0a1da2)
Thinking about it, the people on each side of this debate are pretty much lined up the same way as on the French headscarf debate.
So no, I don't think anyone's particular religion has much to do with how they view this issue.
Quote from: garbon on June 17, 2011, 06:50:43 AMWow, so you can handle the basics of being a decent person. :mellow:
On languish that is still quite a bit above the baseline.
Quote from: Malthus on June 17, 2011, 10:33:29 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2011, 10:30:44 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 17, 2011, 10:28:39 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 17, 2011, 10:16:02 AM
So what is the argument of the Jewish lawyers? Are you arguing that the general law about stunning is stupid and was unjustified in the first place, and that it was a mistake to enact it? Or are you arguing that the law must have exemptions for Jews and Muslims?
Argument is that the law is over-intrusive, and that there is no logical or science-based reason for it to be over-intrusive.
Or at least, none that have been actually shown to exist - except by assertion or presumption.
And you would make this same argument about the law even if you were not Jewish yourself? Color me: skeptical.
Huh? I don't keep kosher.
No, but you certainly identify with those that do.
Quote
I'd make exactly the same argument (and have) if the matter was halal only, or headscarves in France - and I'm not Muslim.
Would you be making these arguments if the laws in question did not attack your personal bugbear, religion? Colour me: skeptical.
So if religion wasn't my "bugbear", then I would NOT be siding with you? Or I would be accepting of logically falacious arguments? huh?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 17, 2011, 09:30:37 AM
Kennedy argued in his opinion that the circumstances suggested intent to target Santeria. But a majority of the Court either rejected the intent-vased standard (Scalia/Rehnquist) or rejected the Smith rule outright (Souter, O'Connor, Blackmun).
Kennedy wrote the opinion of the court for part II-A-1 (Kennedy, Rehnquist, Stevens, Scalia, Thomas), which is the part that concludes that Santeria was explicitly targeted by looking beyond facial neutrality.
Does NL ban factory farming? if they do, or on the day to do ban it, is the day i believe the legislators believe in animal welfare are aren't just trying to be dicks to gain points.
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 10:36:56 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 17, 2011, 09:56:40 AM
The religious aspect doesn't even necessarily come into it. Assume I just plain wanted to slaughter animals in the halal manner, but I had zero religious reason to do it.
To my mind, a regulation prohibiting that would be excessive if there was not strong scientific evidence that halal slaughter actually and in fact was substantially inferior in the way alleged - causing excessive suffering to animals.
So far, I've seen exactly nothing in the way of evidence that this is true - other than argument-by-assertion, argument-by-insult, and circular arguments such as "Norway has this regulation, so it must be right".
That, before we even get to the question of whether a 'religious exemption' is reasonable.
German Vets - Halal, Kosher Slaughter Unacceptable, say German Vets (http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,3474409,00.html)
British Vet and British Food Standards - Halal and Kosher slaughter 'must end' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2977086.stm)
etc.etc.
Argument by assertion. There is no actual
evidence of a scientific nature here.
Example:
Quote"This is a major incision into the animal and to say that it doesn't suffer is quite ridiculous," said FAWC chairwoman, Dr Judy MacArthur Clark.
Compassion in World Farming backed the call, saying: "We believe that the law must be changed to require all animals to be stunned before slaughter."
Some chairwoman saying that "I think X, and anyone who disagrees is quite ridiculous" isn't the same thing as scientific evidence for X. It's her
opinion.
Oddly, in this case the iron-age religious lunatics appear to have science on their side, and the modern-day humanists are resorting to argument-by-assertion and argument-by-authority. :lol:
Quote from: Valmy on June 17, 2011, 10:12:59 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 17, 2011, 10:06:48 AM
And even then it discounts a lot of more militant Christian thinking. It's a very New Age spirituality.
New Age is not very new then.
Some elements of it are very old. Others are much more recent.
Quote from: Barrister on June 17, 2011, 10:37:39 AM
Thinking about it, the people on each side of this debate are pretty much lined up the same way as on the French headscarf debate.
So no, I don't think anyone's particular religion has much to do with how they view this issue.
I think it does and it doesn't. Minsky and Malthus are a bit partial, to put it mildly, when it concerns all kinds of Jewish matters. On those matters, they're capable of being on their C game when it comes to debating prowess, and make arguments that would be far too weak for them normally.
I also don't buy that they're not personally invested in this debate, since they don't keep kosher. They don't live in Israel either, but they're certainly not dispassionate about it.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 17, 2011, 10:27:04 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 17, 2011, 10:16:02 AM
So what is the argument of the Jewish lawyers? Are you arguing that the general law about stunning is stupid and was unjustified in the first place, and that it was a mistake to enact it? Or are you arguing that the law must have exemptions for Jews and Muslims?
As to question 1, it is reasonable for a state to pass laws regulating slaughter and it is also reasonable as a general matter to specify certain methods, including stunning, as part of such a law. But in the absence of good reasons to believe that kosher or hallal methods, if otherwise carried out in compliance with good practices, are totally inconsistent with the objective of limiting pain and cruelty, the law should make reasonable accomodation to religious practice.
Incidentally, I have no dog in this hunt. I don't keep kosher. I don't have any particular interest in defending the Orthodox position. From a personal perspective, I am more concerned about protecting against Establishment (eg forcing me to pay taxes to pursue a religious agenda I don't like) then promoting Free Exercise (protecting the freedom of others to pratice beliefs I don't agree with). But both are core principles of equal weight and importance in any system of government that claims to value religious liberty, and so consistency's sake requires I take both equally seriously, even if one doesn't provide me with a tangible personal benefit.
The issue is primarily the refusal to stun. I don't have an issue with slaughter by exsanguination. The issue I and apparently vets and government regulatory authorities in europe is the refusal to stun and the risk of a prolonged death.
QuoteThe religious aspect doesn't even necessarily come into it. Assume I just plain wanted to slaughter animals in the halal manner, but I had zero religious reason to do it.
To my mind, a regulation prohibiting that would be excessive if there was not strong scientific evidence that halal slaughter actually and in fact was substantially inferior in the way alleged - causing excessive suffering to animals.
See, that I do not agree with at all.
I think the state has an interest in establishing guidelines and rules. I do not think that anyone who can think up some way to not follow those rules can force the state to prove that their new means are a problem.
I think to the extent that there is an argument for halal, it has to be religious in nature. There are good and compelling reason to accomodate religious practices, and there is a reason freedom to practice religion is protected in general.
If you want to violate state regulations on whatever, the burden of proof is on you to convince the state that the law should be changed, and that burden is higher if you are not also claiming that the law creates an imposition on your religious beliefs.
Which isn't to say that it should be impossible to talk the legislature into changing the law to allow your practice, but it certainly should not be the case that your violation of the law should be accepted without such convincing. After all, that is the purpose of law, isn't it? To regulate behavior?
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2011, 10:40:28 AM
No, but you certainly identify with those that do.
Fact is that I'd be arguing exactly the same if only Muslims were concerned. The ad-hom isn't helping you.
QuoteSo if religion wasn't my "bugbear", then I would NOT be siding with you? Or I would be accepting of logically falacious arguments? huh?
Meh? If your bugbear wasn't engaged, you'd be more likely to go with your usual default, the small-l libertarian position -- i.e., asking for scientific evidence of the problem, before supporting the "solution" - to change the law to make it more restrictive.
Quote from: DGuller on June 17, 2011, 10:45:55 AM
I think it does and it doesn't. Minsky and Malthus are a bit partial, to put it mildly, when it concerns all kinds of Jewish matters.
Explain the nature of this partiality.
Given (our?) opposition to headscarf bans, is it limited to "Jewish matters" or is it a general pan-semitic bias?
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2011, 10:46:45 AM
QuoteThe religious aspect doesn't even necessarily come into it. Assume I just plain wanted to slaughter animals in the halal manner, but I had zero religious reason to do it.
To my mind, a regulation prohibiting that would be excessive if there was not strong scientific evidence that halal slaughter actually and in fact was substantially inferior in the way alleged - causing excessive suffering to animals.
See, that I do not agree with at all.
I think the state has an interest in establishing guidelines and rules. I do not think that anyone who can think up some way to not follow those rules can force the state to prove that their new means are a problem.
I think to the extent that there is an argument for halal, it has to be religious in nature. There are good and compelling reason to accomodate religious practices, and there is a reason freedom to practice religion is protected in general.
If you want to violate state regulations on whatever, the burden of proof is on you to convince the state that the law should be changed, and that burden is higher if you are not also claiming that the law creates an imposition on your religious beliefs.
Which isn't to say that it should be impossible to talk the legislature into changing the law to allow your practice, but it certainly should not be the case that your violation of the law should be accepted without such convincing. After all, that is the purpose of law, isn't it? To regulate behavior?
You have the scenario exactly backwards. The question isn't whether to enact some new exemption to an existing law, but whether to change an existing law to make it
more restrictive.
Looking around there doesn't seem to be much difference between a captive bolt stunned cow and a kosher slaughtered cow. They typically both die the same way, through exsanguination. The main difference seems to be that the Kosher animal is cut then falls unconscious a few seconds later and the bolt pistol animal is whacked on the head first or shocked. The shocking seems to be less effective at rendering the animal unconscious. I honestly don't see a problem here. One is not strongly more or less humane then the other.
Quote'They Die Piece by Piece'
In Overtaxed Plants, Humane Treatment of Cattle Is Often a Battle Lost
By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 10, 2001; Page A01
Second of two articles
PASCO, Wash.--It takes 25 minutes to turn a live steer into steak at the modern slaughterhouse where Ramon Moreno works. For 20 years, his post was "second-legger," a job that entails cutting hocks off carcasses as they whirl past at a rate of 309 an hour.
The cattle were supposed to be dead before they got to Moreno. But too often they weren't.
"They blink. They make noises," he said softly. "The head moves, the eyes are wide and looking around."
Still Moreno would cut. On bad days, he says, dozens of animals reached his station clearly alive and conscious. Some would survive as far as the tail cutter, the belly ripper, the hide puller. "They die," said Moreno, "piece by piece."
Under a 23-year-old federal law, slaughtered cattle and hogs first must be "stunned" -- rendered insensible to pain -- with a blow to the head or an electric shock. But at overtaxed plants, the law is sometimes broken, with cruel consequences for animals as well as workers. Enforcement records, interviews, videos and worker affidavits describe repeated violations of the Humane Slaughter Act at dozens of slaughterhouses, ranging from the smallest, custom butcheries to modern, automated establishments such as the sprawling IBP Inc. plant here where Moreno works.
"In plants all over the United States, this happens on a daily basis," said Lester Friedlander, a veterinarian and formerly chief government inspector at a Pennsylvania hamburger plant. "I've seen it happen. And I've talked to other veterinarians. They feel it's out of control."
The U.S. Department of Agriculture oversees the treatment of animals in meat plants, but enforcement of the law varies dramatically. While a few plants have been forced to halt production for a few hours because of alleged animal cruelty, such sanctions are rare.
For example, the government took no action against a Texas beef company that was cited 22 times in 1998 for violations that included chopping hooves off live cattle. In another case, agency supervisorsfailed to take action on multiple complaints of animal cruelty at a Florida beef plant and fired an animal health technician for reporting the problems to the Humane Society. The dismissal letter sent to the technician, Tim Walker, said his dislosure had "irreparably damaged" the agency's relations with the packing plant.
"I complained to everyone -- I said, 'Lookit, they're skinning live cows in there,' " Walker said. "Always it was the same answer: 'We know it's true. But there's nothing we can do about it.' "
In the past three years, a new meat inspection systemthat shifted responsibility to industry has made it harder to catch and report cruelty problems, some federal inspectors say. Under the new system, implemented in 1998, the agency no longer tracks the number of humane-slaughter violations its inspectors find each year.
Some inspectors are so frustrated they're asking outsiders for help: The inspectors' union last spring urged Washington state authorities to crack down on alleged animal abuse at the IBP plant in Pasco. In a statement, IBP said problems described by workers in its Washington state plant "do not accurately represent the way we operate our plants. We take the issue of proper livestock handling very seriously."
But the union complained that new government policies and faster production speeds at the plant had "significantly hampered our ability to ensure compliance." Several animal welfare groups joined in the petition.
"Privatization of meat inspection has meant a quiet death to the already meager enforcement of the Humane Slaughter Act," said Gail Eisnitz of the Humane Farming Association, a group that advocates better treatment of farm animals. "USDA isn't simply relinquishing its humane-slaughter oversight to the meat industry, but is -- without the knowledge and consent of Congress -- abandoning this function altogether."
The USDA's Food Safety Inspection Service, which is responsible for meat inspection, says it has not relaxed its oversight. In January, the agency ordered a review of 100 slaughterhouses. An FSIS memo reminded its 7,600 inspectors they had an "obligation to ensure compliance" with humane-handling laws.
The review comes as pressure grows on both industry and regulators to improve conditions for the 155 million cattle, hogs, horses and sheep slaughtered each year. McDonald's and Burger King have been subject to boycotts by animal rights groups protesting mistreatment of livestock.
As a result, two years ago McDonald's began requiring suppliers to abide by the American Meat Institute's Good Management Practices for Animal Handling and Stunning. The company also began conducting annual audits of meat plants. Last week, Burger King announced it would require suppliers to follow the meat institute's standards.
"Burger King Corp. takes the issues of food safety and animal welfare very seriously, and we expect our suppliers to comply," the company said in a statement.
Industry groups acknowledge that sloppy killing has tangible consequences for consumers as well as company profits. Fear and pain cause animals to produce hormones that damage meat and cost companies tens of millions of dollars a year in discarded product, according to industry estimates.
Industry officials say they also recognize an ethical imperative to treat animals with compassion. Science is blurring the distinction between the mental processes of humans and lower animals -- discovering, for example, that even the lowly rat may dream. Americans thus are becoming more sensitive to the suffering of food animals, even as they consume increasing numbers of them.
"Handling animals humanely," said American Meat Institute President J. Patrick Boyle, "is just the right thing to do."
Clearly, not all plants have gotten the message.
A Post computer analysis of government enforcement records found 527 violations of humane-handling regulations from 1996 to 1997, the last years for which complete records were available. The offenses range from overcrowded stockyards to incidents in which live animals were cut, skinned or scalded.
Through the Freedom of Information Act, The Post obtained enforcement documents from 28 plants that had high numbers of offenses or had drawn penalties for violating humane-handling laws. The Post also interviewed dozens of current and former federal meat inspectors and slaughterhouse workers. A reporter reviewed affidavits and secret video recordings made inside two plants.
Among the findings:
• One Texas plant, Supreme Beef Packers in Ladonia, had 22 violations in six months. During one inspection, federal officials found nine live cattle dangling from an overhead chain. But managers at the plant, which announced last fall it was ceasing operations, resisted USDA warnings, saying its practices were no different than others in the industry. "Other plants are not subject to such extensive scrutiny of their stunning activities," the plant complained in a 1997 letter to the USDA.
• Government inspectors halted production for a day at the Calhoun Packing Co. beef plant in Palestine, Tex., after inspectors saw cattle being improperly stunned. "They were still conscious and had good reflexes," B.V. Swamy, a veterinarian and senior USDA official at the plant, wrote. The shift supervisor "allowed the cattle to be hung anyway." IBP, which owned the plant at the time, contested the findings but "took steps to resolve the situation," including installing video equipment and increasing training, a spokesman said. IBP has since sold the plant.
• At the Farmers Livestock Cooperative processing plant in Hawaii, inspectors documented 14 humane-slaughter violations in as many months. Records from 1997 and 1998 describe hogs that were walking and squealing after being stunned as many as four times. In a memo to USDA, the company said it fired the stunner and increased monitoring of the slaughter process.
• At an Excel Corp. beef plant in Fort Morgan, Colo., production was halted for a day in 1998 after workers allegedly cut off the leg of a live cow whose limbs had become wedged in a piece of machinery. In imposing the sanction, U.S. inspectors cited a string of violations in the previous two years, including the cutting and skinning of live cattle. The company, responding to one such charge, contended that it was normal for animals to blink and arch their backs after being stunned, and such "muscular reaction" can occur up to six hours after death. "None of these reactions indicate the animal is still alive," the company wrote to USDA.
• Hogs, unlike cattle, are dunked in tanks of hot water after they are stunned to soften the hides for skinning. As a result, a botched slaughter condemns some hogs to being scalded and drowned. Secret videotape from an Iowa pork plant shows hogs squealing and kicking as they are being lowered into the water.
USDA documents and interviews with inspectors and plant workers attributed many of the problems to poor training, faulty or poorly maintained equipment or excessive production speeds. Those problems were identified five years ago in an industry-wide audit by Temple Grandin, an assistant professor with Colorado State University's animal sciences department and one of the nation's leading experts on slaughter practices.
In the early 1990s, Grandin developed the first objective standards for treatment of animals in slaughterhouses, which were adopted by the American Meat Institute, the industry's largest trade group. Her initial, USDA-funded survey in 1996 was one of the first attempts to grade slaughter plants.
One finding was a high failure rate among beef plants that use stunning devices known as "captive-bolt" guns. Of the plants surveyed, only 36 percent earned a rating of "acceptable" or better, meaning cattle were knocked unconscious with a single blow at least 95 percent of the time.
Grandin now conducts annual surveys as a consultant for the American Meat Institute and McDonald's Corp. She maintains that the past four years have brought dramatic improvements -- mostly because of pressure from McDonald's, which sends a team of meat industry auditors into dozens of plants each year to observe slaughter practices.
Based on the data collected by McDonald's auditors, the portion of beef plants scoring "acceptable" or better climbed to 90 percent in 1999. Some workers and inspectors are skeptical of the McDonald's numbers, and Grandin said the industry's performance dropped slightly last year after auditors stopped giving notice of some inspections.
Grandin said high production speeds can trigger problems when people and equipment are pushed beyond their capacity. From a typical kill rate of 50 cattle an hour in the early 1900s, production speeds rose dramatically in the 1980s. They now approach 400 per hour in the newest plants.
"It's like the 'I Love Lucy' episode in the chocolate factory," she said. "You can speed up a job and speed up a job, and after a while you get to a point where performance doesn't simply decline -- it crashes."
When that happens, it's not only animals that suffer. Industry trade groups acknowledge that improperly stunned animals contribute to worker injuries in an industry that already has the nation's highest rate of job-related injuries and illnesses -- about 27 percent a year. At some plants, "dead" animals have inflicted so many broken limbs and teeth that workers wear chest pads and hockey masks.
"The live cows cause a lot of injuries," said Martin Fuentes, an IBP worker whose arm was kicked and shattered by a dying cow. "The line is never stopped simply because an animal is alive."
A 'Brutal' Harvest
At IBP's Pasco complex, the making of the American hamburger starts in a noisy, blood-spattered chamber shielded from view by a stainless steel wall. Here, live cattle emerge from a narrow chute to be dispatched in a process known as "knocking" or "stunning." On most days the chamber is manned by a pair of Mexican immigrants who speak little English and earn about $9 an hour for killing up to 2,050 head per shift.
The tool of choice is the captive-bolt gun, which fires a retractable metal rod into the steer's forehead. An effective stunning requires a precision shot, which workers must deliver hundreds of times daily to balky, frightened animals that frequently weigh 1,000 pounds or more. Within 12 seconds of entering the chamber, the fallen steer is shackled to a moving chain to be bled and butchered by other workers in a fast-moving production line.
The hitch, IBP workers say, is that some "stunned" cattle wake up.
"If you put a knife into the cow, it's going to make a noise: It says, 'Moo!' " said Moreno, the former second-legger, who began working in the stockyard last year. "They move the head and the eyes and the leg like the cow wants to walk."
After a blow to the head, an unconscious animal may kick or twitch by reflex. But a videotape, made secretly by IBP workers and reviewed by veterinarians for The Post, depicts cattle that clearly are alive and conscious after being stunned.
Some cattle, dangling by a leg from the plant's overhead chain, twist and arch their backs as though trying to right themselves. Close-ups show blinking reflexes, an unmistakable sign of a conscious brain, according to guidelines approved by the American Meat Institute.
The video, parts of which were aired by Seattle television station KING last spring, shows injured cattle being trampled. In one graphic scene, workers give a steer electric shocks by jamming a battery-powered prod into its mouth.
More than 20 workers signed affidavits alleging that the violations shown on tape are commonplace and that supervisors are aware of them. The sworn statements and videos were prepared with help from the Humane Farming Association. Some workers had taken part in a 1999 strike over what they said were excessive plant production speeds.
"I've seen thousands and thousands of cows go through the slaughter process alive," IBP veteran Fuentes, the worker who was injured while working on live cattle, said in an affidavit. "The cows can get seven minutes down the line and still be alive. I've been in the side-puller where they're still alive. All the hide is stripped out down the neck there."
IBP, the nation's top beef processor, denounced as an "appalling aberration" the problems captured on the tape. It suggested the events may have been staged by "activists trying to raise money and promote their agenda. . . .
"Like many other people, we were very upset over the hidden camera video," the company said. "We do not in any way condone some of the livestock handling that was shown."
After the video surfaced, IBP increased worker training and installed cameras in the slaughter area. The company also questioned workers and offered a reward for information leading to identification of those responsible for the video. One worker said IBP pressured him to sign a statement denying that he had seen live cattle on the line.
"I knew that what I wrote wasn't true," said the worker, who did not want to be identified for fear of losing his job. "Cows still go alive every day. When cows go alive, it's because they don't give me time to kill them."
Independent assessments of the workers' claims have been inconclusive. Washington state officials launched a probe in May that included an unannounced plant inspection. The investigators say they were detained outside the facility for an hour while their identities were checked. They saw no acts of animal cruelty once permitted inside.
Grandin, the Colorado State professor, also inspected IBP's plant, at the company's request; that inspection was announced. Although she observed no live cattle being butchered, she concluded that the plant's older-style equipment was "overloaded." Grandin reviewed parts of the workers' videotape and said there was no mistaking what she saw.
"There were fully alive beef on that rail," Grandin said.
Inconsistent Enforcement
Preventing this kind of suffering is officially a top priority for the USDA's Food Safety Inspection Service. By law, a humane-slaughter violation is among a handful of offenses that can result in an immediate halt in production -- and cost a meatpacker hundreds or even thousands of dollars per idle minute.
In reality, many inspectors describe humane slaughter as a blind spot: Inspectors' regular duties rarely take them to the chambers where stunning occurs. Inconsistencies in enforcement, training and record-keeping hamper the agency's ability to identify problems.
The meat inspectors' union, in its petition last spring to Washington state's attorney general, contended that federal agents are "often prevented from carrying out" the mandate against animal cruelty. Among the obstacles inspectors face are "dramatic increases in production speeds, lack of support from supervisors in plants and district offices . . . new inspection policies which significantly reduce our enforcement authority, and little to no access to the areas of the plants where animals are killed," stated the petition by the National Joint Council of Food Inspection Locals.
Barbara Masters, the agency's director of slaughter operations, told meat industry executives in February she didn't know if the number of violations was up or down, though she believed most plants were complying with the law. "We encourage the district offices to monitor trends," she said. "The fact that we haven't heard anything suggests there are no trends."
But some inspectors see little evidence the agency is interested in hearing about problems. Under the new inspection system, the USDA stopped tracking the number of violations and dropped all mentions of humane slaughter from its list of rotating tasks for inspectors.
The agency says it expects its watchdogs to enforce the law anyway. Many inspectors still do, though some occasionally wonder if it's worth the trouble.
"It always ends up in argument: Instead of re-stunning the animal, you spend 20 minutes just talking about it," said Colorado meat inspector Gary Dahl, sharing his private views. "Yes, the animal will be dead in a few minutes anyway. But why not let him die with dignity?"
Did find this though. Pretty nasty.
Quote from: Malthus on June 17, 2011, 10:51:22 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2011, 10:46:45 AM
QuoteThe religious aspect doesn't even necessarily come into it. Assume I just plain wanted to slaughter animals in the halal manner, but I had zero religious reason to do it.
To my mind, a regulation prohibiting that would be excessive if there was not strong scientific evidence that halal slaughter actually and in fact was substantially inferior in the way alleged - causing excessive suffering to animals.
See, that I do not agree with at all.
I think the state has an interest in establishing guidelines and rules. I do not think that anyone who can think up some way to not follow those rules can force the state to prove that their new means are a problem.
I think to the extent that there is an argument for halal, it has to be religious in nature. There are good and compelling reason to accomodate religious practices, and there is a reason freedom to practice religion is protected in general.
If you want to violate state regulations on whatever, the burden of proof is on you to convince the state that the law should be changed, and that burden is higher if you are not also claiming that the law creates an imposition on your religious beliefs.
Which isn't to say that it should be impossible to talk the legislature into changing the law to allow your practice, but it certainly should not be the case that your violation of the law should be accepted without such convincing. After all, that is the purpose of law, isn't it? To regulate behavior?
You have the scenario exactly backwards. The question isn't whether to enact some new exemption to an existing law, but whether to change an existing law to make it more restrictive.
No, the question is whether to end a religiously motivated exception permitting, what for non-muslims and non-jews would be considered, cruelty to animals.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 10:53:32 AM
Looking around there doesn't seem to be much difference between a captive bolt stunned cow and a kosher slaughtered cow. They typically both die the same way, through exsanguination. The main difference seems to be that the Kosher animal is cut then falls unconscious a few seconds later and the bolt pistol animal is whacked on the head first or shocked. The shocking seems to be less effective at rendering the animal unconscious. I honestly don't see a problem here. One is not strongly more or less humane then the other.
That's pretty well the argument.
But some chairwoman of a committee in the UK thinks this point is "quite ridiculous", which is apparently good enough evidence - for some. :hmm:
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 10:56:34 AM
No, the question is whether to end a religiously motivated exception permitting, what for non-muslims and non-jews would be considered, cruelty to animals.
I don't see much evidence of cruelty.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 10:56:13 AM
Quote'They Die Piece by Piece'
Did find this though. Pretty nasty.
Time and money pressures in badly run abattoirs result in animal welfare regulations not being followed resulting in unnecessary animal suffering. No shit.
This is just a rehash of the Ninja Rabbi argument.
Quote from: Malthus on June 17, 2011, 10:43:31 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 10:36:56 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 17, 2011, 09:56:40 AM
The religious aspect doesn't even necessarily come into it. Assume I just plain wanted to slaughter animals in the halal manner, but I had zero religious reason to do it.
To my mind, a regulation prohibiting that would be excessive if there was not strong scientific evidence that halal slaughter actually and in fact was substantially inferior in the way alleged - causing excessive suffering to animals.
So far, I've seen exactly nothing in the way of evidence that this is true - other than argument-by-assertion, argument-by-insult, and circular arguments such as "Norway has this regulation, so it must be right".
That, before we even get to the question of whether a 'religious exemption' is reasonable.
German Vets - Halal, Kosher Slaughter Unacceptable, say German Vets (http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,3474409,00.html)
British Vet and British Food Standards - Halal and Kosher slaughter 'must end' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2977086.stm)
etc.etc.
Argument by assertion. There is no actual evidence of a scientific nature here.
Example:
Quote"This is a major incision into the animal and to say that it doesn't suffer is quite ridiculous," said FAWC chairwoman, Dr Judy MacArthur Clark.
Compassion in World Farming backed the call, saying: "We believe that the law must be changed to require all animals to be stunned before slaughter."
Some chairwoman saying that "I think X, and anyone who disagrees is quite ridiculous" isn't the same thing as scientific evidence for X. It's her opinion.
Oddly, in this case the iron-age religious lunatics appear to have science on their side, and the modern-day humanists are resorting to argument-by-assertion and argument-by-authority. :lol:
Uhh, its not like your side has trotted out a bunch of evidence that halal slaughter is always humane. You can argue that you are not convinced by the evidence (and I find your rejection of authority as "unscientific" rather odd - evidence is not always scientific), but you haven't really provided any counter examples.
The only argument made by Minsky is that screwed up non-halal slaughter can be worse than not screwed up halal slaughter. I suppose one can easily nix that argument by noting that screwed up halal slaughter is almost certainly a hell of a lot worse. I am no scientist, but I would guess fucking up slitting some animals throat is going to be pretty damn unpleasant for the animal.
Of course, that is a "scientific" opinion, so perhaps we should just ignore it.
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 10:56:34 AM
No, the question is whether to end a religiously motivated exception permitting, what for non-muslims and non-jews would be considered, cruelty to animals.
No, the question is whether to create a more restrictive law. There is exactly zero evidence that the process currently legal is cruel - other than assertion, etc.
The point for Berkut is that if the law is "presumptively" sensible - his position - then
changing it is what requires evidence.
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 10:59:08 AM
Time and money pressures in badly run abattoirs result in animal welfare regulations not being followed resulting in unnecessary animal suffering. No shit.
This is just a rehash of the Ninja Rabbi argument.
These seem to be the standard, not the exception.
Quote"If you put a knife into the cow, it's going to make a noise: It says, 'Moo!' "
that shouldn't make me laugh, but it did. i'm a bad person.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 10:58:25 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 10:56:34 AM
No, the question is whether to end a religiously motivated exception permitting, what for non-muslims and non-jews would be considered, cruelty to animals.
I don't see much evidence of cruelty.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110408/ap_on_re_eu/eu_netherlands_ritual_slaughter_ban
QuoteThe 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?
Quote from: Malthus on June 17, 2011, 10:59:59 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 10:56:34 AM
No, the question is whether to end a religiously motivated exception permitting, what for non-muslims and non-jews would be considered, cruelty to animals.
No, the question is whether to create a more restrictive law. There is exactly zero evidence that the process currently legal is cruel - other than assertion, etc.
The point for Berkut is that if the law is "presumptively" sensible - his position - then changing it is what requires evidence.
The issue really is that it annoys some religious people, which makes it very desirable to those on this board that despise religion. Viking has made this very clear when he posted his world trade center photo.
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2011, 10:59:46 AM
Uhh, its not like your side has trotted out a bunch of evidence that halal slaughter is always humane. You can argue that you are not convinced by the evidence (and I find your rejection of authority as "unscientific" rather odd - evidence is not always scientific), but you haven't really provided any counter examples.
Point here is that, to change a law, I'd like to see some actual scientific evidence - of the sort you claimed was abundant - that the methods used are actually a problem. Is that so hard to understand?
QuoteThe only argument made by Minsky is that screwed up non-halal slaughter can be worse than not screwed up halal slaughter. I suppose one can easily nix that argument by noting that screwed up halal slaughter is almost certainly a hell of a lot worse. I am no scientist, but I would guess fucking up slitting some animals throat is going to be pretty damn unpleasant for the animal.
Of course, that is a "scientific" opinion, so perhaps we should just ignore it.
So far, Minsky's article is the only thing of any scientific weight offered.
Your opinion is worth about as much as that of the people in those articles.
Quote from: Malthus on June 17, 2011, 10:59:59 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 10:56:34 AM
No, the question is whether to end a religiously motivated exception permitting, what for non-muslims and non-jews would be considered, cruelty to animals.
No, the question is whether to create a more restrictive law. There is exactly zero evidence that the process currently legal is cruel - other than assertion, etc.
The point for Berkut is that if the law is "presumptively" sensible - his position - then changing it is what requires evidence.
When both the government animal welfare bodies and the professional association of specialists on animal welfare all conclude that it is cruel then that is zero evidence?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 11:05:32 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 17, 2011, 10:59:59 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 10:56:34 AM
No, the question is whether to end a religiously motivated exception permitting, what for non-muslims and non-jews would be considered, cruelty to animals.
No, the question is whether to create a more restrictive law. There is exactly zero evidence that the process currently legal is cruel - other than assertion, etc.
The point for Berkut is that if the law is "presumptively" sensible - his position - then changing it is what requires evidence.
The issue really is that it annoys some religious people, which makes it very desirable to those on this board that despise religion. Viking has made this very clear when he posted his world trade center photo.
That was a response to The Brain posting a comment on religion and flying planes into buildings. Still, you haven't explained to me why your (or anybody else's) religion permits you special license to commit what all the government animal welfare bodies and veterinary professional associations consider animal cruelty.
It all comes back to one thing.
"Woe is us. Remember the Holocaust, you anti-semites."
They will be beating that drum for a thousand thousand years.
Quote from: Malthus on June 17, 2011, 11:05:51 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2011, 10:59:46 AM
Uhh, its not like your side has trotted out a bunch of evidence that halal slaughter is always humane. You can argue that you are not convinced by the evidence (and I find your rejection of authority as "unscientific" rather odd - evidence is not always scientific), but you haven't really provided any counter examples.
Point here is that, to change a law, I'd like to see some actual scientific evidence - of the sort you claimed was abundant - that the methods used are actually a problem. Is that so hard to understand?
QuoteThe only argument made by Minsky is that screwed up non-halal slaughter can be worse than not screwed up halal slaughter. I suppose one can easily nix that argument by noting that screwed up halal slaughter is almost certainly a hell of a lot worse. I am no scientist, but I would guess fucking up slitting some animals throat is going to be pretty damn unpleasant for the animal.
Of course, that is a "scientific" opinion, so perhaps we should just ignore it.
So far, Minsky's article is the only thing of any scientific weight offered.
Your opinion is worth about as much as that of the people in those articles.
See, that is more bullshit fallacy.
My "opinion" that an screwed up slaughter by halal methods is likely inhumane is perfectly valid - you don't need to be a scientist to figure that out. Rejecting a view simply because it does not meet some criteria you created for the sole purpose of rejecting the view is falalcious.
You might as well reject my view that it is raining today, since I am not a meteorologist.
You don't have to be a scientist to figure out that fucking up the slaughter of an animal is going to result in a lot of pain for said animal. Minsky's "view" that fucked up stunning is worse than not fucked up halal is just as non-scientific as the views you are rejecting.
The difference is that I *don't* reject his claim - because it is supportable on its merits. He doesn't need a degree in cow anatomy to figure that out. I reject its applicability since it is fallacious, since it is comparing two things that are not equivalent.
Funny, you accept his claim that a screwed up stunning slaughter is worse than a not screwed up halal slaughter on its face, no demand for "scientific evidence" from him, but demand scientific evidence for other equally "obvious" claims like the ones from actual vets that state that yeah, cutting an animals throat is pretty unpleasant for the animal.
In reaction to Razs post, which was rather disturning,about screwed up animal slaughtering:
QuoteThe prohibition of stunning and the humane attitude towards the slaughtered animal expressed in shechita law limits the extent to which Jewish slaughterhouses can industrialize their procedures. The most industrialized attempt at a kosher slaughterhouse, Agriprocessors of Postville, Iowa, became the center of controversy in 2004, after People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals released gruesome undercover video of cattle struggling to their feet with their tracheas and esophagi ripped out after shechita. Some of the cattle actually got up and stood for a minute or so after being dumped from the rotating pen. [1][10]
Temple Grandin, a leading designer of animal handling systems, wrote, on visiting a shechita slaughterhouse, "I will never forget having nightmares after visiting the now defunct Spencer Foods plant in Spencer, Iowa fifteen years ago. Employees wearing football helmets attached a nose tong to the nose of a writhing beast suspended by a chain wrapped around one back leg. Each terrified animal was forced with an electric prod to run into a small stall which had a slick floor on a forty-five degree angle. This caused the animal to slip and fall so that workers could attach the chain to its rear leg [in order to raise it into the air]. As I watched this nightmare, I thought, 'This should not be happening in a civilized society.' In my diary I wrote, 'If hell exists, I am in it.' I vowed that I would replace the plant from hell with a kinder and gentler system."[11] However, Dr Grandin has said that "When the cut is done correctly, the animal appears not to feel it. From an animal welfare standpoint, the major concern during ritual slaughter are the stressful and cruel methods of restraint (holding) that are used in some plants."[12]
The UK Farm Animal Welfare Council says that the method by which Kosher and Halal meat is produced causes severe suffering to animals and it should be banned immediately. According to FAWC it can take up to two minutes for cattle to bleed to death, thus amounting to animal abuse. Compassion in World Farming also supported the recommendation saying "We believe that the law must be changed to require all animals to be stunned before slaughter."[13][14] The UK government rejected its recommendations.
Various research papers on cattle slaughter collected by Compassion In World Farming mention that "after the throat is cut, large clots can form at the severed ends of the carotid arteries, leading to occlusion of the wound (or "ballooning" as it is known in the slaughtering trade). Nick Cohen wrote in the New Statesman, "Occlusions slow blood loss from the carotids and delay the decline in blood pressure that prevents the suffering brain from blacking out. In one group of calves, 62.5 per cent suffered from ballooning. Even if the slaughterman is a master of his craft and the cut to the neck is clean, blood is carried to the brain by vertebral arteries and it keeps cattle conscious of their pain."
I am sure Malthus will reject Grandin in this case, as "not scientific" while accepting his word as gospel in Razs article.
Quote from: Slargos on June 17, 2011, 11:13:48 AM
It all comes back to one thing.
"Woe is us. Remember the Holocaust, you anti-semites."
They will be beating that drum for a thousand thousand years.
Well, when you keep being anti-Semitic it only makes sense.
Quote from: Slargos on June 17, 2011, 11:13:48 AM
It all comes back to one thing.
"Woe is us. Remember the Holocaust, you anti-semites."
They will be beating that drum for a thousand thousand years.
Maybe we should try to exterminate Swedes then you could do the same thing?
Peer Reviewed Evidence
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17972-animals-feel-the-pain-of-religious-slaughter.html
QuoteAnimals feel the pain of religious slaughter
15:40 13 October 2009 by Andy Coghlan
For similar stories, visit the Food and Drink Topic Guide
Brain signals have shown that calves do appear to feel pain when slaughtered according to Jewish and Muslim religious law, strengthening the case for adapting the practices to make them more humane.
"I think our work is the best evidence yet that it's painful," says Craig Johnson, who led the study at Massey University in Palmerston North, New Zealand.
Johnson summarised his results last week in London when receiving an award from the UK Humane Slaughter Association. His team also showed that if the animal is concussed through stunning, signals corresponding to pain disappear.
The findings increase pressure on religious groups that practice slaughter without stunning to reconsider. "It provides further evidence, if it was needed, that slaughtering an animal without stunning it first is painful," says Christopher Wathes of the UK Farm Animal Welfare Council, which has long argued for the practice to end.
Stunning result
In most western countries, animals must be stunned before they are slaughtered, but there is an exemption for religious practice, most prominently Jewish shechita and Muslim dhabiha. Animal welfare groups have long argued that on welfare grounds, the exemptions should be lifted, as they have been in Norway.
Johnson's work, funded by the UK and New Zealand agriculture ministries, builds on findings in human volunteers of specific patterns of brain electrical activity when they feel pain. Recorded with electroencephalograms, the patterns were reproducible in at least eight other mammal species known to be experiencing pain.
Johnson developed a way of lightly anaesthetising animals so that although they experienced no pain, the same electrical pain signals could be reliably detected, showing they would have suffered pain if awake.
The team first cut calves' throats in a procedure matching that of Jewish and Muslim slaughter methods. They detected a pain signal lasting for up to 2 minutes after the incision. When their throats are cut, calves generally lose consciousness after 10 to 30 seconds, sometimes longer.
Cut-throat practice
The researchers then showed that the pain originates from cutting throat nerves, not from the loss of blood, suggesting the severed nerves send pain signals until the time of death. Finally, they stunned animals 5 seconds after incision and showed that this makes the pain signal disappear instantly.
"It wasn't a surprise to me, but in terms of the religious community, they are adamant animals don't experience any pain, so the results might be a surprise to them," says Johnson.
He praised Muslim dhabiha practitioners in New Zealand and elsewhere who have already adopted stunning prior to slaughter. They use a form of electrical stunning which animals quickly recover from if not slaughtered, proving that the stunned animal is "healthy", thereby qualifying as halal.
Pressure drop
Representatives for both faiths responded by claiming that stunning itself hurts animals. A spokesman for Shechita UK says that the throat cut is so rapid that it serves as its own "stun", adding that there is abundant evidence shechita is humane.
"Shechita is instantaneous, and due to the immediate drop in blood pressure and [oxygen starvation] of the brain, the animal loses consciousness within 2 seconds," he says. "It conforms to the statutory definition of stunning, in that it is a process which causes the immediate loss of consciousness which lasts until death."
Ahmed Ghanem, a halal slaughterman based in New Zealand, says that blood doesn't drain properly from stunned animals, although this has been countered by recent research at the University of Bristol in the UK.
Ghanem cites a 1978 study relying on EEG measurements led by Wilhelm Schulze of the University of Hanover, Germany, apparently concluding that halal slaughter was more humane than slaughter following stunning. But Schulze himself, who died in 2002, warned in his report that the stunning technique may not have functioned properly.
Journal reference: New Zealand Veterinary Journal, vol 57, p 77
The NZVJ isn't available online.
Quote from: Malthus on June 17, 2011, 10:59:59 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 10:56:34 AM
No, the question is whether to end a religiously motivated exception permitting, what for non-muslims and non-jews would be considered, cruelty to animals.
No, the question is whether to create a more restrictive law. There is exactly zero evidence that the process currently legal is cruel - other than assertion, etc.
That is simply not true. Expert testimony is certainly evidence. It might not be convincing to you, but saying it is not evidence is spurious.
Quote
The point for Berkut is that if the law is "presumptively" sensible - his position - then changing it is what requires evidence.
Well, this is a little more of a grey area, since we are actually talking about removing an exemption, so there is already an established presumption that slaughter without stunning is cruel. But you do make a good point, that given that the exemption already exists, those demanding it's removal do in fact have a burden to show that the exemption as it exists is not justified.
To that extent, I would agree that those asking for the exemption to be removed should have to show that
A) Halal slaughter is in fact more cruel than stunning slaughter, and
B) That the imposition on Orthodox Jews by removing said slaughter methods is not so significant that it should be maintained.
I thought it was interesting that in France (I think it was in France anyway) they banned it and the courts decided that since Jews could get kosher food from other sources, it was not an imposition to ban it in France. That struck me as a rather odd legal position to take.
Quote from: Jacob on June 17, 2011, 11:17:42 AM
Quote from: Slargos on June 17, 2011, 11:13:48 AM
It all comes back to one thing.
"Woe is us. Remember the Holocaust, you anti-semites."
They will be beating that drum for a thousand thousand years.
Well, when you keep being anti-Semitic it only makes sense.
Anti-semitism is all but eradicated in Swedish culture, with the remnants being over-wintered Nazis and immigrants. Still, every time a situation comes up with jews involved, there's complaining about anti-semitism.
Quote from: Valmy on June 17, 2011, 11:18:59 AM
Quote from: Slargos on June 17, 2011, 11:13:48 AM
It all comes back to one thing.
"Woe is us. Remember the Holocaust, you anti-semites."
They will be beating that drum for a thousand thousand years.
Maybe we should try to exterminate Swedes then you could do the same thing?
If you feel you must.
I will gladly play the victim over offenses not given me, but rather my ancestors.
Quote from: Slargos on June 17, 2011, 11:13:48 AM
It all comes back to one thing.
"Woe is us. Remember the Holocaust, you anti-semites."
They will be beating that drum for a thousand thousand years.
That is more odious than the attempt to paint this as some kind of religious pogrom. And makes the claim that it IS some kind of religious pogrom actually not as idiotic as I thought it was. Well done, slargos.
Quote from: Malthus on June 17, 2011, 11:05:51 AM
So far, Minsky's article is the only thing of any scientific weight offered.
But it's not really scientific to compare worst case of one method to best case of another method, no matter how often you ignore the nature of this very basic logical fallacy.
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2011, 11:21:46 AM
Quote from: Slargos on June 17, 2011, 11:13:48 AM
It all comes back to one thing.
"Woe is us. Remember the Holocaust, you anti-semites."
They will be beating that drum for a thousand thousand years.
That is more odious than the attempt to paint this as some kind of religious pogrom. And makes the claim that it IS some kind of religious pogrom actually not as idiotic as I thought it was. Well done, slargos.
Bullshit. It may not always be spoken explicitly, but the subtext is always there: you can't do this, because we're jewish.
Edit: Explcitly. :blush:
Quote from: Malthus on June 17, 2011, 10:47:47 AM
Fact is that I'd be arguing exactly the same if only Muslims were concerned. The ad-hom isn't helping you.
And in fact you have. See: Berkut going apeshit over Islamic arbitration.
Quote from: Neil on June 17, 2011, 11:26:36 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 17, 2011, 10:47:47 AM
Fact is that I'd be arguing exactly the same if only Muslims were concerned. The ad-hom isn't helping you.
And in fact you have. See: Berkut going apeshit over Islamic arbitration.
Say what?
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2011, 10:18:00 AM
My position is that if the law already exists, then we should presume that it has passed whatever bar is necessary when weighing its obtrusiveness vs its utility.
I think any other position would be rather odd to take - should we just assume that some law fails that metric, and hence ought to be changed?
My position as someone who in general thinks that the bar should be pretty high, and also thinks that many existing laws fail to meet that bar is based on the reasoned evaluation of those laws, their usefulness, and their intrusiveness. Just because I think the burden of proof has been met in many cases of existing laws does not mean I think that there ought not to be said burden of proof on those asking for the laws to be changed.
Now, the reason many of these laws exist is that when they were passed, THEY did not satisfy the burden of proof placed on them to show that the law was both necessary and not an unreasonable imposition on freedom. And that is unfortunate. But in this case, I haven't even seen that argument made. Just assumed.
But the fact of the matter is that the law that was passed includes the exception for halal and kosher slaughtering. By your logic, you must assume that the exceptions "passed whatever bar is necessary when weighing its obtrusiveness vs its utility" and that, as you point out, we should not "just assume that [the law [including the exception] fails that metric, and hence ought to be changed." Indeed, taking the position that the law should be changed without a clear reason for doing so, including some scientific evidence that the average kosher/halal butchering is less humane than the average stun-before-cutting butchering, "would be rather odd to take."
In other words, your logic would seem to me to support your opposition, not your own position. What we are debating is a change in the existing law.
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 11:20:23 AM
Peer Reviewed Evidence
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17972-animals-feel-the-pain-of-religious-slaughter.html
One thing i don't get, if under anethesia the body sends signals that aren't felt doesn't that mean when the animal is unconscious (through throat slitting after the 2 seconds mentioned) you wouldn't be able to tell if it feels pain?
Quote from: grumbler on June 17, 2011, 11:33:10 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2011, 10:18:00 AM
My position is that if the law already exists, then we should presume that it has passed whatever bar is necessary when weighing its obtrusiveness vs its utility.
I think any other position would be rather odd to take - should we just assume that some law fails that metric, and hence ought to be changed?
My position as someone who in general thinks that the bar should be pretty high, and also thinks that many existing laws fail to meet that bar is based on the reasoned evaluation of those laws, their usefulness, and their intrusiveness. Just because I think the burden of proof has been met in many cases of existing laws does not mean I think that there ought not to be said burden of proof on those asking for the laws to be changed.
Now, the reason many of these laws exist is that when they were passed, THEY did not satisfy the burden of proof placed on them to show that the law was both necessary and not an unreasonable imposition on freedom. And that is unfortunate. But in this case, I haven't even seen that argument made. Just assumed.
But the fact of the matter is that the law that was passed includes the exception for halal and kosher slaughtering. By your logic, you must assume that the exceptions "passed whatever bar is necessary when weighing its obtrusiveness vs its utility" and that, as you point out, we should not "just assume that [the law [including the exception] fails that metric, and hence ought to be changed." Indeed, taking the position that the law should be changed without a clear reason for doing so, including some scientific evidence that the average kosher/halal butchering is less humane than the average stun-before-cutting butchering, "would be rather odd to take."
In other words, your logic would seem to me to support your opposition, not your own position. What we are debating is a change in the existing law.
Yes, I already addressed this, and basically agree. The onus is on those who want to remove the exemption to provide evidence that the exemption does not satisfy current standards of cruelty weighed against freedom of religion.
While I can see fighting to get the law thrown out or modified for all, I don't feel comfortable supporting individuals fighting to keep only their exemptions. Perhaps I'm reading the articles wrong, but from what I can see, I only see this: "Dutch law required animals to be stunned before being slaughtered but made an exception for ritual halaal and kosher slaughters." Does that mean that I can't slit an animal's throat for a non-religious reason?
Why is pain such a problem for animals that are being slaughtered?
Those aren't dogs skinned alive for experimentation. They are cows being killed to be cut up & eaten, not torture.
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2011, 11:20:25 AM
To that extent, I would agree that those asking for the exemption to be removed should have to show that
A) Halal slaughter is in fact more cruel than stunning slaughter, and
B) That the imposition on Orthodox Jews by removing said slaughter methods is not so significant that it should be maintained.
I thought it was interesting that in France (I think it was in France anyway) they banned it and the courts decided that since Jews could get kosher food from other sources, it was not an imposition to ban it in France. That struck me as a rather odd legal position to take.
Well, I think you'd be required to show that halal slaughter is noticeably, or significantly, more cruel. If the difference exists, but is fairly trivial, I don't think that's much of a basis for a ban.
Quote from: HVC on June 17, 2011, 11:33:44 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 11:20:23 AM
Peer Reviewed Evidence
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17972-animals-feel-the-pain-of-religious-slaughter.html
One thing i don't get, if under anethesia the body sends signals that aren't felt doesn't that mean when the animal is unconscious (through throat after the 2 seconds mentioned) you wouldn't be able to tell if it feels pain?
I haven't read the paper, so I am speculating. You can anesthesize on the brain end rather than the nerve end, that the pain signal is sent but not recieved, which seems to be the procedure described. The article refers to
2 minutes of pain signals. The muslim apologist says it takes 2 seconds for the animal to pass out. The significant content of the paper seems to be that the religious slaughter methods cause much more pain than apologists claim.
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 11:05:15 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 10:58:25 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 10:56:34 AM
No, the question is whether to end a religiously motivated exception permitting, what for non-muslims and non-jews would be considered, cruelty to animals.
I don't see much evidence of cruelty.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110408/ap_on_re_eu/eu_netherlands_ritual_slaughter_ban
QuoteThe 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? From what I found, the Kosher method renders a cow unconscious in a matter of seconds.
I doubt all national veterinary associations conclude this.
http://www.mustaqim.co.uk/halalstudy.htm This study done by German veterinary weekly in the late 1970's seems to indicate that both methods are fairly similar from the point of view of the animal. In fact, the ritual slaughter may be less painful then the captive bolt.
The slaughter in the form of ritual cut is, if carried out properly, painless in sheep and calves according to the EEG recordings and the missing defensive actions.
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 11:20:23 AM
Peer Reviewed Evidence
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17972-animals-feel-the-pain-of-religious-slaughter.html
QuoteAnimals feel the pain of religious slaughter
15:40 13 October 2009 by Andy Coghlan
For similar stories, visit the Food and Drink Topic Guide
Brain signals have shown that calves do appear to feel pain when slaughtered according to Jewish and Muslim religious law, strengthening the case for adapting the practices to make them more humane.
"I think our work is the best evidence yet that it's painful," says Craig Johnson, who led the study at Massey University in Palmerston North, New Zealand.
Johnson summarised his results last week in London when receiving an award from the UK Humane Slaughter Association. His team also showed that if the animal is concussed through stunning, signals corresponding to pain disappear.
The findings increase pressure on religious groups that practice slaughter without stunning to reconsider. "It provides further evidence, if it was needed, that slaughtering an animal without stunning it first is painful," says Christopher Wathes of the UK Farm Animal Welfare Council, which has long argued for the practice to end.
Stunning result
In most western countries, animals must be stunned before they are slaughtered, but there is an exemption for religious practice, most prominently Jewish shechita and Muslim dhabiha. Animal welfare groups have long argued that on welfare grounds, the exemptions should be lifted, as they have been in Norway.
Johnson's work, funded by the UK and New Zealand agriculture ministries, builds on findings in human volunteers of specific patterns of brain electrical activity when they feel pain. Recorded with electroencephalograms, the patterns were reproducible in at least eight other mammal species known to be experiencing pain.
Johnson developed a way of lightly anaesthetising animals so that although they experienced no pain, the same electrical pain signals could be reliably detected, showing they would have suffered pain if awake.
The team first cut calves' throats in a procedure matching that of Jewish and Muslim slaughter methods. They detected a pain signal lasting for up to 2 minutes after the incision. When their throats are cut, calves generally lose consciousness after 10 to 30 seconds, sometimes longer.
Cut-throat practice
The researchers then showed that the pain originates from cutting throat nerves, not from the loss of blood, suggesting the severed nerves send pain signals until the time of death. Finally, they stunned animals 5 seconds after incision and showed that this makes the pain signal disappear instantly.
"It wasn't a surprise to me, but in terms of the religious community, they are adamant animals don't experience any pain, so the results might be a surprise to them," says Johnson.
He praised Muslim dhabiha practitioners in New Zealand and elsewhere who have already adopted stunning prior to slaughter. They use a form of electrical stunning which animals quickly recover from if not slaughtered, proving that the stunned animal is "healthy", thereby qualifying as halal.
Pressure drop
Representatives for both faiths responded by claiming that stunning itself hurts animals. A spokesman for Shechita UK says that the throat cut is so rapid that it serves as its own "stun", adding that there is abundant evidence shechita is humane.
"Shechita is instantaneous, and due to the immediate drop in blood pressure and [oxygen starvation] of the brain, the animal loses consciousness within 2 seconds," he says. "It conforms to the statutory definition of stunning, in that it is a process which causes the immediate loss of consciousness which lasts until death."
Ahmed Ghanem, a halal slaughterman based in New Zealand, says that blood doesn't drain properly from stunned animals, although this has been countered by recent research at the University of Bristol in the UK.
Ghanem cites a 1978 study relying on EEG measurements led by Wilhelm Schulze of the University of Hanover, Germany, apparently concluding that halal slaughter was more humane than slaughter following stunning. But Schulze himself, who died in 2002, warned in his report that the stunning technique may not have functioned properly.
Journal reference: New Zealand Veterinary Journal, vol 57, p 77
The NZVJ isn't available online.
Thanks. This is the most scientific article offered yet, and would seem to shift the burden to those who want to allow exemptions from the practice of stunning.
Quote from: garbon on June 17, 2011, 11:36:36 AM
While I can see fighting to get the law thrown out or modified for all, I don't feel comfortable supporting individuals fighting to keep only their exemptions. Perhaps I'm reading the articles wrong, but from what I can see, I only see this: "Dutch law required animals to be stunned before being slaughtered but made an exception for ritual halaal and kosher slaughters." Does that mean that I can't slit an animal's throat for a non-religious reason?
The exemption that is being repealed is the exemption that allows Muslims and Jews to slaughter without stunning. They are not being prohibited from slaughtering by exsanguination, they just have to stun the animal first so it doesn't feel the pain.
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2011, 11:35:06 AM
Yes, I already addressed this, and basically agree. The onus is on those who want to remove the exemption to provide evidence that the exemption does not satisfy current standards of cruelty weighed against freedom of religion.
I misunderstood your position, then. So... nevermind! :lol:
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 11:40:15 AM
Quote from: HVC on June 17, 2011, 11:33:44 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 11:20:23 AM
Peer Reviewed Evidence
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17972-animals-feel-the-pain-of-religious-slaughter.html
One thing i don't get, if under anethesia the body sends signals that aren't felt doesn't that mean when the animal is unconscious (through throat after the 2 seconds mentioned) you wouldn't be able to tell if it feels pain?
I haven't read the paper, so I am speculating. You can anesthesize on the brain end rather than the nerve end, that the pain signal is sent but not recieved, which seems to be the procedure described. The article refers to 2 minutes of pain signals. The muslim apologist says it takes 2 seconds for the animal to pass out. The significant content of the paper seems to be that the religious slaughter methods cause much more pain than apologists claim.
I think the methodolgy is basically that the anesthitize the animal. This does not stop pain signals, but does mean that the signals are not received. *Not*, I think, the same as being unconscious.
So they are basically saying that the claim that halal slaughter is painless i untrue. Halal slaughter does not (of course) include anesthetizing the animal.
Stunning, however, actually removes the pain signals altogether. Of course, that is only effective when it is done properly, and given the speed at which modern plants operate, it is questionable how often it is done properly. It isn't much of a solution if it only works 90% of the time because the person doing the stunning has to do it 300 times an hour, and if he screws up - to bad, animal is carted away into the process anyway. Which is what the article Raz posted suggests happens, at least in some cases.
Of course, I find the idea that kosher slaughter is somehow immune to those same efficiency pressures pretty spurious as well. They might be better, but I am sure that "kosher" slaughterhouses have their incidences of cutting corners as well.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 11:40:54 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 11:05:15 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 10:58:25 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 10:56:34 AM
No, the question is whether to end a religiously motivated exception permitting, what for non-muslims and non-jews would be considered, cruelty to animals.
I don't see much evidence of cruelty.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110408/ap_on_re_eu/eu_netherlands_ritual_slaughter_ban
QuoteThe 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? From what I found, the Kosher method renders a cow unconscious in a matter of seconds.
I doubt all national veterinary associations conclude this.
http://www.mustaqim.co.uk/halalstudy.htm This study done by German veterinary weekly in the late 1970's seems to indicate that both methods are fairly similar from the point of view of the animal. In fact, the ritual slaughter may be less painful then the captive bolt.
The slaughter in the form of ritual cut is, if carried out properly, painless in sheep and calves according to the EEG recordings and the missing defensive actions.
from the article I quoted
QuoteGhanem cites a 1978 study relying on EEG measurements led by Wilhelm Schulze of the University of Hanover, Germany, apparently concluding that halal slaughter was more humane than slaughter following stunning. But Schulze himself, who died in 2002, warned in his report that the stunning technique may not have functioned properly.
Not to mention the earlier link I had to a story where the German Vets association calls halal and kosher slaughter cruel and calls for it to be banned.
Quote from: grumbler on June 17, 2011, 11:44:19 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2011, 11:35:06 AM
Yes, I already addressed this, and basically agree. The onus is on those who want to remove the exemption to provide evidence that the exemption does not satisfy current standards of cruelty weighed against freedom of religion.
I misunderstood your position, then. So... nevermind! :lol:
To be fair, my original point was that the onus was on those who demand the exemption - I changed when Malthus pointed out that the exemption already exists, so not surprising that you would be confused.
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 11:45:17 AM
QuoteGhanem cites a 1978 study relying on EEG measurements led by Wilhelm Schulze of the University of Hanover, Germany, apparently concluding that halal slaughter was more humane than slaughter following stunning. But Schulze himself, who died in 2002, warned in his report that the stunning technique may not have functioned properly.
And he is the counter example of your New Zealand study.
QuoteIn a bold response to a New Zealand study that concluded that slaughter without stunning causes pain, Dr. Grandin said that the knife in the study was shorter than those used in schechita, uncertainty whether the wound was kept open like in schechita, and the sharpening of the knives was done by a mechanical device rather than on a whetstone. It was studies like these that led to the banning of schechita in New Zealand.
http://matzav.com/dr-temple-grandin-reaffirms-humaneness-of-kosher-schechita
Temple Grandin is a well know,animal welfare activist and has even been praised by PETA.
And if the stunning technique can't be assure to work reliably in laboratory conditions, why should we except it to work reliably in field conditions?
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2011, 11:44:56 AM
Of course, I find the idea that kosher slaughter is somehow immune to those same efficiency pressures pretty spurious as well. They might be better, but I am sure that "kosher" slaughterhouses have their incidences of cutting corners as well.
Are there any industrial-scale kosher or halal slaughterhouses?
I thought that demand for such meat was fairly limited even amongst Jews and Muslims, so I assumed it was done on more of a craftsman scale.
Quote from: Barrister on June 17, 2011, 11:52:26 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2011, 11:44:56 AM
Of course, I find the idea that kosher slaughter is somehow immune to those same efficiency pressures pretty spurious as well. They might be better, but I am sure that "kosher" slaughterhouses have their incidences of cutting corners as well.
Are there any industrial-scale kosher or halal slaughterhouses?
I thought that demand for such meat was fairly limited even amongst Jews and Muslims, so I assumed it was done on more of a craftsman scale.
Not in the US. There was an attempt at a Kosher industrial butchery but it didn't work and they closed it.
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 11:43:33 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 17, 2011, 11:36:36 AM
While I can see fighting to get the law thrown out or modified for all, I don't feel comfortable supporting individuals fighting to keep only their exemptions. Perhaps I'm reading the articles wrong, but from what I can see, I only see this: "Dutch law required animals to be stunned before being slaughtered but made an exception for ritual halaal and kosher slaughters." Does that mean that I can't slit an animal's throat for a non-religious reason?
The exemption that is being repealed is the exemption that allows Muslims and Jews to slaughter without stunning. They are not being prohibited from slaughtering by exsanguination, they just have to stun the animal first so it doesn't feel the pain.
I think my point wasn't clear. Would I be allowed under the current exemption to slaughter an animal by exsanguination without stunning? What makes me uncomfortable is supporting an exemption for specific religious groups...as it seems to belie the fact that the law isn't actually needed.
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2011, 11:44:56 AM
I think the methodolgy is basically that the anesthitize the animal. This does not stop pain signals, but does mean that the signals are not received. *Not*, I think, the same as being unconscious.
So they are basically saying that the claim that halal slaughter is painless i untrue. Halal slaughter does not (of course) include anesthetizing the animal.
Stunning, however, actually removes the pain signals altogether. Of course, that is only effective when it is done properly, and given the speed at which modern plants operate, it is questionable how often it is done properly. It isn't much of a solution if it only works 90% of the time because the person doing the stunning has to do it 300 times an hour, and if he screws up - to bad, animal is carted away into the process anyway. Which is what the article Raz posted suggests happens, at least in some cases.
Of course, I find the idea that kosher slaughter is somehow immune to those same efficiency pressures pretty spurious as well. They might be better, but I am sure that "kosher" slaughterhouses have their incidences of cutting corners as well.
They aren't really anesthetized. They are smashed in the brain so they are unconscious. At least with cows (pigs are different, but then there aren't many Kosher pig butchers).
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 11:49:55 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 11:45:17 AM
QuoteGhanem cites a 1978 study relying on EEG measurements led by Wilhelm Schulze of the University of Hanover, Germany, apparently concluding that halal slaughter was more humane than slaughter following stunning. But Schulze himself, who died in 2002, warned in his report that the stunning technique may not have functioned properly.
And he is the counter example of your New Zealand study.
QuoteIn a bold response to a New Zealand study that concluded that slaughter without stunning causes pain, Dr. Grandin said that the knife in the study was shorter than those used in schechita, uncertainty whether the wound was kept open like in schechita, and the sharpening of the knives was done by a mechanical device rather than on a whetstone. It was studies like these that led to the banning of schechita in New Zealand.
http://matzav.com/dr-temple-grandin-reaffirms-humaneness-of-kosher-schechita
Temple Grandin is a well know,animal welfare activist and has even been praised by PETA.
praised by PETA = kiss of scientific death...
Grandin's criticism is about the knife being used. Her argument only makes sense if the length of the knife matters. Johnson shows that the pain continues for 2 minutes, I can't see that being consistent with a difference in knife length mattering. She does not seem to challenge his thesis, his methods or his veracity. Grandin is a specialist on animal handling, not the neural functioning of cattle.
Quote from: Barrister on June 17, 2011, 09:48:56 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 17, 2011, 01:32:17 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 16, 2011, 06:34:05 PM
My own personal opinion is that government should make reasonable accommodation to religious practice.
But (thank God) this is not what freedom of religion means in Europe. It means you can profess your belief in a deity or deities (although also with restrictions, e.g. when you are a public official) and you can worship your deity or deities, including together with fellow believers. You do not get special exceptions from laws applicable to everyone. That would be against the rule of separation of church and state (unlike in the US, it means more than just a prohibition against establishing a state church here).
Really?
I find that somewhat hard to believe.
So observant Jews are expected to attend work or school on high holidays? Religious conscientous objectors to compulsory military service are not allowed or excused? No accomodations are made to muslims fasting during Ramadan?
We don't have muslims in Poland. :cool:
Quote from: Martinus on June 17, 2011, 12:02:14 PM
We don't have muslims in Poland. :cool:
Did you guys actively help the nazi's get rid of them when you got rid of your jews, or is it just a coincidence?
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 11:40:15 AM
Quote from: HVC on June 17, 2011, 11:33:44 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 11:20:23 AM
Peer Reviewed Evidence
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17972-animals-feel-the-pain-of-religious-slaughter.html
One thing i don't get, if under anethesia the body sends signals that aren't felt doesn't that mean when the animal is unconscious (through throat after the 2 seconds mentioned) you wouldn't be able to tell if it feels pain?
I haven't read the paper, so I am speculating. You can anesthesize on the brain end rather than the nerve end, that the pain signal is sent but not recieved, which seems to be the procedure described. The article refers to 2 minutes of pain signals. The muslim apologist says it takes 2 seconds for the animal to pass out. The significant content of the paper seems to be that the religious slaughter methods cause much more pain than apologists claim.
I guess you are referring to me here. Is it fair to call you a "Fascist apologist". After all, one of the parties that supports this is The Dutch Freedom Party (named in your article as a Xenophobic group). One of the members of the group refers to it as having a natural tendency toward fascism. Though you may not be referring to me, since I didn't say anything about two second (though I don't know anyone else who did either).
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 11:53:26 AM
Quote from: Barrister on June 17, 2011, 11:52:26 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2011, 11:44:56 AM
Of course, I find the idea that kosher slaughter is somehow immune to those same efficiency pressures pretty spurious as well. They might be better, but I am sure that "kosher" slaughterhouses have their incidences of cutting corners as well.
Are there any industrial-scale kosher or halal slaughterhouses?
I thought that demand for such meat was fairly limited even amongst Jews and Muslims, so I assumed it was done on more of a craftsman scale.
Not in the US. There was an attempt at a Kosher industrial butchery but it didn't work and they closed it.
If by "didn't work" you mean it was shut down after being exposed for pretty horrific practices that by any standards were far from humane, while at the same time Jewish authorities stated that they were perfectly kosher...then yes, that is correct.
http://www.jewishveg.com/media11.html
Now, if PETA says that kosher slaughter is generally more humane than non-kosher slaughter, I would tend to believe them - after all, they aren't exactly in the business of approving of ANY slaughter.
But I remain skeptical of the claim that we should assume that in general kosher slaughter is immune from the standard business problems of scale and efficiency. There is a huge demand for "kosher" products in the US for example, certainly large enough that it isn't being served by Rabbi Bob and his team of ninja butchers operating in some agrarian slaughter yard, where each animal is lovingly handled like a pet before it is gently put to sleep.
Quote from: HVC on June 17, 2011, 12:03:42 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 17, 2011, 12:02:14 PM
We don't have muslims in Poland. :cool:
Did you guys actively help the nazi's get rid of them when you got rid of your jews, or is it just a coincidence?
They didn't want to come when we were dirt poor and now we know better (rich in experiences of the Scandis for one) to keep them out as much as possible. :P
Quote from: Martinus on June 17, 2011, 12:02:14 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 17, 2011, 09:48:56 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 17, 2011, 01:32:17 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 16, 2011, 06:34:05 PM
My own personal opinion is that government should make reasonable accommodation to religious practice.
But (thank God) this is not what freedom of religion means in Europe. It means you can profess your belief in a deity or deities (although also with restrictions, e.g. when you are a public official) and you can worship your deity or deities, including together with fellow believers. You do not get special exceptions from laws applicable to everyone. That would be against the rule of separation of church and state (unlike in the US, it means more than just a prohibition against establishing a state church here).
Really?
I find that somewhat hard to believe.
So observant Jews are expected to attend work or school on high holidays? Religious conscientous objectors to compulsory military service are not allowed or excused? No accomodations are made to muslims fasting during Ramadan?
We don't have muslims in Poland. :cool:
Is that really how you wish to answer my question?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 11:56:31 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2011, 11:44:56 AM
I think the methodolgy is basically that the anesthitize the animal. This does not stop pain signals, but does mean that the signals are not received. *Not*, I think, the same as being unconscious.
So they are basically saying that the claim that halal slaughter is painless i untrue. Halal slaughter does not (of course) include anesthetizing the animal.
Stunning, however, actually removes the pain signals altogether. Of course, that is only effective when it is done properly, and given the speed at which modern plants operate, it is questionable how often it is done properly. It isn't much of a solution if it only works 90% of the time because the person doing the stunning has to do it 300 times an hour, and if he screws up - to bad, animal is carted away into the process anyway. Which is what the article Raz posted suggests happens, at least in some cases.
Of course, I find the idea that kosher slaughter is somehow immune to those same efficiency pressures pretty spurious as well. They might be better, but I am sure that "kosher" slaughterhouses have their incidences of cutting corners as well.
They aren't really anesthetized. They are smashed in the brain so they are unconscious. At least with cows (pigs are different, but then there aren't many Kosher pig butchers).
No, the people doing the study anesthisized their subjects so they could measure pain signals without causing the animals undue pain. Neither kosher or stunning involves anesthesia.
Stunning is not about unconsciousness, according to the article. It literally causes pain signals to not be sent at all. It (supposedly) shuts down the nervous system altogether.
Quote from: Slargos on June 17, 2011, 11:13:48 AM
It all comes back to one thing.
"Woe is us. Remember the Holocaust, you anti-semites."
They will be beating that drum for a thousand thousand years.
I must say that it is rather gratifying to have both kinds of moon-worshippers on the same side of the barricade for once. :cool:
It's funny how these types always come out of woodwork to defend the most obnoxious and disgusting positions.
Catholics and Muslims may hate each other? Sure, but they can unite when it comes to preventing fags from marrying.
Jews and Muslims may wish each other dead? Sure, but they can unite when it comes to torturing animals.
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 12:01:37 PM
praised by PETA = kiss of scientific death...
Grandin's criticism is about the knife being used. Her argument only makes sense if the length of the knife matters. Johnson shows that the pain continues for 2 minutes, I can't see that being consistent with a difference in knife length mattering. She does not seem to challenge his thesis, his methods or his veracity. Grandin is a specialist on animal handling, not the neural functioning of cattle.
[/quote]
I imagine the proper equipment would matter in a case like this. Someone not trained and properly equipped can't really be expected to give good example of how the job is done.
If I am to understand you correctly, your argument against the German study is that the captive bolt being the more humane tool is based on the
captive bolt not working properly.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 12:04:07 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 11:40:15 AM
Quote from: HVC on June 17, 2011, 11:33:44 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 11:20:23 AM
Peer Reviewed Evidence
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17972-animals-feel-the-pain-of-religious-slaughter.html
One thing i don't get, if under anethesia the body sends signals that aren't felt doesn't that mean when the animal is unconscious (through throat after the 2 seconds mentioned) you wouldn't be able to tell if it feels pain?
I haven't read the paper, so I am speculating. You can anesthesize on the brain end rather than the nerve end, that the pain signal is sent but not recieved, which seems to be the procedure described. The article refers to 2 minutes of pain signals. The muslim apologist says it takes 2 seconds for the animal to pass out. The significant content of the paper seems to be that the religious slaughter methods cause much more pain than apologists claim.
I guess you are referring to me here. Is it fair to call you a "Fascist apologist". After all, one of the parties that supports this is The Dutch Freedom Party (named in your article as a Xenophobic group). One of the members of the group refers to it as having a natural tendency toward fascism. Though you may not be referring to me, since I didn't say anything about two second (though I don't know anyone else who did either).
I'm referring to the person with a muslim name referred to in the article, not you.
Goddamn it. Stupid quotes.
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2011, 11:20:25 AM
I thought it was interesting that in France (I think it was in France anyway) they banned it and the courts decided that since Jews could get kosher food from other sources, it was not an imposition to ban it in France. That struck me as a rather odd legal position to take.
Not necessarily, especially if the "other sources" meant "legal import from other EU member states". A lot of bans on goods and services were overruled in the past on the grounds that they distorting the intra-community trade.
Edit: Which I guess means: Let's lobby for a pan-European anti-kosher/halal directive. :swiss:
I'm glad I'm not on the side agreeing with Marty or Slargos.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 12:09:50 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 12:01:37 PM
praised by PETA = kiss of scientific death...
Grandin's criticism is about the knife being used. Her argument only makes sense if the length of the knife matters. Johnson shows that the pain continues for 2 minutes, I can't see that being consistent with a difference in knife length mattering. She does not seem to challenge his thesis, his methods or his veracity. Grandin is a specialist on animal handling, not the neural functioning of cattle.
I imagine the proper equipment would matter in a case like this. Someone not trained and properly equipped can't really be expected to give good example of how the job is done.
If I am to understand you correctly, your argument against the German study is that the captive bolt being the more humane tool is based on the captive bolt not working properly.
Yes, he has reason to believe that his own methodology was insufficient, so the conclusion is that his study is not valid. He compares halal slaughter to a non-functioning stunning device and concludes that the halal slaughter is more humane. This is not a case of comparing apples to oranges, it is comparing granny smiths to rotten pink ladies and concluding that granny smith apples are better. This does not mean that the conclusion he reaches should be turned 180 degrees, it just means that his study should not be used to justify anything. That is how science works.
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2011, 10:59:46 AM
Uhh, its not like your side has trotted out a bunch of evidence that halal slaughter is always humane. You can argue that you are not convinced by the evidence (and I find your rejection of authority as "unscientific" rather odd - evidence is not always scientific), but you haven't really provided any counter examples.
The only argument made by Minsky is that screwed up non-halal slaughter can be worse than not screwed up halal slaughter. I suppose one can easily nix that argument by noting that screwed up halal slaughter is almost certainly a hell of a lot worse. I am no scientist, but I would guess fucking up slitting some animals throat is going to be pretty damn unpleasant for the animal.
That was not the only argument.
The argument was that expert opinon (as cited) holds that both methods are consistent with best humane practices, and that much more significant are issues like the restraints and the implementing protocols. No one in the thread has yet responded to this point other than vague citations to pronouncements of national professional associations, which is not scientific evidence.
The second argument is that because of the ritual requirements for kosher/hallal slaughter, training and experience of the slaughterman is likely to be higher and thus as a matter of what actually happens in real life there is less risk of inhumane treatment.
Both arguments, if sound, suggest that there is no problem here that needs fixing. Both also suggest that to the extent that one is concerned about humane treatment -- which does appear to be a real problem -- the focus really ought to be on improving training and enforcing proper restraint protocols, not singling out an exemption that applies to a small minority.
I also disgaree with your last point. Because while botched cutting is admittedly horrible, so is botched having one's head shot by a bolt gun, or botched multiple electrocutions not resulting in loss of consciousness. It is not obvious to me that the first is appreciable worst than the others.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 12:15:06 PM
I'm glad I'm not on the side agreeing with Marty or Slargos.
Me too, you little me-too.
Given that you've expressed the same mentality that gives these people good cause to fight over offenses anywhere up to 2000 years old, it's not surprising that you'd come to the same conclusions.
Marti, aren't you the guy in another thread was all for fois gras and the that brandy drowned bird thingy? they're coming after those next :ph34r: :P
Quote from: garbon on June 17, 2011, 11:54:14 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 11:43:33 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 17, 2011, 11:36:36 AM
While I can see fighting to get the law thrown out or modified for all, I don't feel comfortable supporting individuals fighting to keep only their exemptions. Perhaps I'm reading the articles wrong, but from what I can see, I only see this: "Dutch law required animals to be stunned before being slaughtered but made an exception for ritual halaal and kosher slaughters." Does that mean that I can't slit an animal's throat for a non-religious reason?
The exemption that is being repealed is the exemption that allows Muslims and Jews to slaughter without stunning. They are not being prohibited from slaughtering by exsanguination, they just have to stun the animal first so it doesn't feel the pain.
I think my point wasn't clear. Would I be allowed under the current exemption to slaughter an animal by exsanguination without stunning? What makes me uncomfortable is supporting an exemption for specific religious groups...as it seems to belie the fact that the law isn't actually needed.
No, the exception only applies to ritual halal or kosher slaughter according to the article in the first post.
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 12:15:44 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 12:09:50 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 12:01:37 PM
praised by PETA = kiss of scientific death...
Grandin's criticism is about the knife being used. Her argument only makes sense if the length of the knife matters. Johnson shows that the pain continues for 2 minutes, I can't see that being consistent with a difference in knife length mattering. She does not seem to challenge his thesis, his methods or his veracity. Grandin is a specialist on animal handling, not the neural functioning of cattle.
I imagine the proper equipment would matter in a case like this. Someone not trained and properly equipped can't really be expected to give good example of how the job is done.
If I am to understand you correctly, your argument against the German study is that the captive bolt being the more humane tool is based on the captive bolt not working properly.
Yes, he has reason to believe that his own methodology was insufficient, so the conclusion is that his study is not valid. He compares halal slaughter to a non-functioning stunning device and concludes that the halal slaughter is more humane. This is not a case of comparing apples to oranges, it is comparing granny smiths to rotten pink ladies and concluding that granny smith apples are better. This does not mean that the conclusion he reaches should be turned 180 degrees, it just means that his study should not be used to justify anything. That is how science works.
If these devices don't work in laboratory conditions, why should we expect them to work in the slaughter house? And again, the methodology very well may be flawed with the New Zealand study do to improper tools and techniques.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 17, 2011, 12:16:43 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2011, 10:59:46 AM
Uhh, its not like your side has trotted out a bunch of evidence that halal slaughter is always humane. You can argue that you are not convinced by the evidence (and I find your rejection of authority as "unscientific" rather odd - evidence is not always scientific), but you haven't really provided any counter examples.
The only argument made by Minsky is that screwed up non-halal slaughter can be worse than not screwed up halal slaughter. I suppose one can easily nix that argument by noting that screwed up halal slaughter is almost certainly a hell of a lot worse. I am no scientist, but I would guess fucking up slitting some animals throat is going to be pretty damn unpleasant for the animal.
That was not the only argument.
The argument was that expert opinon (as cited) holds that both methods are consistent with best humane practices, and that much more significant are issues like the restraints and the implementing protocols. No one in the thread has yet responded to this point other than vague citations to pronouncements of national professional associations, which is not scientific evidence.
The second argument is that because of the ritual requirements for kosher/hallal slaughter, training and experience of the slaughterman is likely to be higher and thus as a matter of what actually happens in real life there is less risk of inhumane treatment.
Both arguments, if sound, suggest that there is no problem here that needs fixing. Both also suggest that to the extent that one is concerned about humane treatment -- which does appear to be a real problem -- the focus really ought to be on improving training and enforcing proper restraint protocols, not singling out an exemption that applies to a small minority.
I also disgaree with your last point. Because while botched cutting is admittedly horrible, so is botched having one's head shot by a bolt gun, or botched multiple electrocutions not resulting in loss of consciousness. It is not obvious to me that the first is appreciable worst than the others.
Read this, you seem to have missed it. the latest up to date peer reviewed science.
http://languish.org/forums/index.php?topic=5349.msg273349#msg273349
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2011, 11:14:57 AM
I am sure Malthus will reject Grandin in this case, as "not scientific" while accepting his word as gospel in Razs article.
I posted a link to her entire article on the subject; there are also other articles on the website. I would encourage you to read the entire thing and not just the pull quotes from an editorialist, or for that matter the pull quotes that I used.
I believe that taken as a whole, the work and its conclusions are consistent with what I last posted in the thread.
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 12:21:46 PM
Read this, you seem to have missed it. the latest up to date peer reviewed science.
http://languish.org/forums/index.php?topic=5349.msg273349#msg273349
No I didn't miss it. I considered it more carefully then you did. The problem is that the researchers were not trained in kosher slaughter and did not properly follow the techniques.
QuoteThe knife used in this experiment was much shorter than the special long knives that are used in Kosher slaughter. The use of a shorter knife may possibly have had an effect on the painfulness of the cut. The author has observed that shorter knives, where the tip of the knife gouges into the wound during the cut, will cause struggling. An animal may also struggle when the wound closes back over the knife during the cut. Since the calves were anesthetized, it was impossible to observe behavioral reaction during the cut. From reading the methods sections in the papers, it was not possible to determine if the wound was held open during the cut, which may help reduce pain. The knife used in this experiment was similar to many of the knives the author has observed being used for halal slaughter. The special long knife used in kosher slaughter is important. When the knife is used correctly on adult cattle, there was little or no behavioral reaction (Grandin, 1992, 1994). Barnett et al (2007) reported similar reactions in chickens. Only four chickens out of 100 had a behavioral reaction. Grandin (1994) reported that the behavioral reaction of cattle was greater when a hand was waved in their faces compared to well done Kosher slaughter. All of the cattle were extensively raised animals with a large flight zone. They were all held in an upright position in a restraint box. The results of this study clearly show that the use of a knife with a 24.5 cm long blade definitely causes pain. Another factor that may have had an effect on pain was the use of a grinding wheel to sharpen the knife instead of a whet stone. There is a need to repeat this experiment with a Kosher knife and a skilled shochet who obeys all the Kosher rules for correct cutting.
http://www.grandin.com/ritual/slaughter.without.stunning.causes.pain.html
Quote from: Slargos on June 17, 2011, 12:17:07 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 12:15:06 PM
I'm glad I'm not on the side agreeing with Marty or Slargos.
Me too, you little me-too.
Given that you've expressed the same mentality that gives these people good cause to fight over offenses anywhere up to 2000 years old, it's not surprising that you'd come to the same conclusions.
Well, look on the bright side. Your people won't be around in 2,000 years. Probably won't be around in 200. Yet there will still be Jews.
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2011, 12:04:31 PM
There is a huge demand for "kosher" products in the US for example, certainly large enough that it isn't being served by Rabbi Bob and his team of ninja butchers operating in some agrarian slaughter yard, where each animal is lovingly handled like a pet before it is gently put to sleep.
:lol: You can be very amusing when you don't disagree with me.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 12:21:07 PM
If these devices don't work in laboratory conditions, why should we expect them to work in the slaughter house? And again, the methodology very well may be flawed with the New Zealand study do to improper tools and techniques.
One german guy was sloppy with his stunner. He used this possibly non-functioning stunner to conclude that stunners don't work. He later concludes that his stunner didn't work after the work is done and his work is repeated many times coming to the opposite conclusion he did.
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 12:25:44 PM
Tne german guy was sloppy with his stunner. He used this possibly non-functioning stunner to conclude that stunners don't work. He later concludes that his stunner didn't work after the work is done and his work is repeated many times coming to the opposite conclusion he did.
No doubt the workers earning minimum wage in non-kosher industrial slaughterhouses are far more diligent than that guy.
I am curious: If it's found through careful and empirical study that animals do in fact suffer more from Kosher/Halal slaughter (either or both) than from the use of the stun bolt, would you folks who are currently viciously against the removal of this exception relent? Or is it more important to consider the religious implications than animal "rights".
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 17, 2011, 12:27:33 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 12:25:44 PM
Tne german guy was sloppy with his stunner. He used this possibly non-functioning stunner to conclude that stunners don't work. He later concludes that his stunner didn't work after the work is done and his work is repeated many times coming to the opposite conclusion he did.
No doubt the workers earning minimum wage in non-kosher industrial slaughterhouses are far more diligent than that guy.
read that article posted by raz. the mooing cow thng is the funniest sad thing i've read in a while.
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 12:25:44 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 12:21:07 PM
If these devices don't work in laboratory conditions, why should we expect them to work in the slaughter house? And again, the methodology very well may be flawed with the New Zealand study do to improper tools and techniques.
One german guy was sloppy with his stunner. He used this possibly non-functioning stunner to conclude that stunners don't work. He later concludes that his stunner didn't work after the work is done and his work is repeated many times coming to the opposite conclusion he did.
Incorrect. The author said it
may have functioned incorrectly. When did put this caveat on his experimentation? If some Germans are sloppy with it in a scientific experiment, what does that say about some high school drop out doing this 3,000 times a day?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 17, 2011, 12:27:33 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 12:25:44 PM
Tne german guy was sloppy with his stunner. He used this possibly non-functioning stunner to conclude that stunners don't work. He later concludes that his stunner didn't work after the work is done and his work is repeated many times coming to the opposite conclusion he did.
No doubt the workers earning minimum wage in non-kosher industrial slaughterhouses are far more diligent than that guy.
And if Stephen Hawking were to get a job as a playing card packer at a chineese plant for a day, I expect he would do much, much worse at it than the below-poverty-line workers. Strange, I know. But I suspect it to be true.
Quote from: Slargos on June 17, 2011, 12:28:17 PM
I am curious: If it's found through careful and empirical study that animals do in fact suffer more from Kosher/Halal slaughter (either or both) than from the use of the stun bolt, would you folks who are currently viciously against the removal of this exception relent? Or is it more important to consider the religious implications than animal "rights".
i would. i'd also expect the politicians to now go after the factory farms and actually moniter slaughter houses since the deem animal welfare so important now.
Quote from: Slargos on June 17, 2011, 12:28:17 PM
I am curious: If it's found through careful and empirical study that animals do in fact suffer more from Kosher/Halal slaughter (either or both) than from the use of the stun bolt, would you folks who are currently viciously against the removal of this exception relent? Or is it more important to consider the religious implications than animal "rights".
If the difference were proven to be significant, I would change my position.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 17, 2011, 12:24:08 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 12:21:46 PM
Read this, you seem to have missed it. the latest up to date peer reviewed science.
http://languish.org/forums/index.php?topic=5349.msg273349#msg273349
No I didn't miss it. I considered it more carefully then you did. The problem is that the researchers were not trained in kosher slaughter and did not properly follow the techniques.
QuoteThe knife used in this experiment was much shorter than the special long knives that are used in Kosher slaughter. The use of a shorter knife may possibly have had an effect on the painfulness of the cut. The author has observed that shorter knives, where the tip of the knife gouges into the wound during the cut, will cause struggling. An animal may also struggle when the wound closes back over the knife during the cut. Since the calves were anesthetized, it was impossible to observe behavioral reaction during the cut. From reading the methods sections in the papers, it was not possible to determine if the wound was held open during the cut, which may help reduce pain. The knife used in this experiment was similar to many of the knives the author has observed being used for halal slaughter. The special long knife used in kosher slaughter is important. When the knife is used correctly on adult cattle, there was little or no behavioral reaction (Grandin, 1992, 1994). Barnett et al (2007) reported similar reactions in chickens. Only four chickens out of 100 had a behavioral reaction. Grandin (1994) reported that the behavioral reaction of cattle was greater when a hand was waved in their faces compared to well done Kosher slaughter. All of the cattle were extensively raised animals with a large flight zone. They were all held in an upright position in a restraint box. The results of this study clearly show that the use of a knife with a 24.5 cm long blade definitely causes pain. Another factor that may have had an effect on pain was the use of a grinding wheel to sharpen the knife instead of a whet stone. There is a need to repeat this experiment with a Kosher knife and a skilled shochet who obeys all the Kosher rules for correct cutting.
http://www.grandin.com/ritual/slaughter.without.stunning.causes.pain.html
but it seems you missed the bit where the New Scientist article said
QuoteThe researchers then showed that the pain originates from cutting throat nerves, not from the loss of blood, suggesting the severed nerves send pain signals until the time of death. Finally, they stunned animals 5 seconds after incision and showed that this makes the pain signal disappear instantly.
since Grandin's reply is about the rate of loss of blood.
Quote from: Slargos on June 17, 2011, 12:28:17 PM
I am curious: If it's found through careful and empirical study that animals do in fact suffer more from Kosher/Halal slaughter (either or both) than from the use of the stun bolt, would you folks who are currently viciously against the removal of this exception relent? Or is it more important to consider the religious implications than animal "rights".
I was curious about the opposite actually. We have you who hates Jews, and Viking and Marty who hate all religions. All three of you have made it abundantly clear that this is about religion rather then say, law or science.
Quote from: HVC on June 17, 2011, 12:30:06 PM
Quote from: Slargos on June 17, 2011, 12:28:17 PM
I am curious: If it's found through careful and empirical study that animals do in fact suffer more from Kosher/Halal slaughter (either or both) than from the use of the stun bolt, would you folks who are currently viciously against the removal of this exception relent? Or is it more important to consider the religious implications than animal "rights".
i would. i'd also expect the politicians to now go after the factory farms and actually moniter slaughter houses since the deem animal welfare so important now.
By the same token I expect you're one of those people who cried that USA could not intervene in Kosovo "since they didn't intervene in Rwanda".
It's a ridiculous argument, and it also assumes that because halal slaughter is now illegal, that it will be vigorously pursued.
A lot of these regulations are more meant to steer public opinion rather than expected to be followed to the letter immediately after being passed.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 17, 2011, 12:27:33 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 12:25:44 PM
Tne german guy was sloppy with his stunner. He used this possibly non-functioning stunner to conclude that stunners don't work. He later concludes that his stunner didn't work after the work is done and his work is repeated many times coming to the opposite conclusion he did.
No doubt the workers earning minimum wage in non-kosher industrial slaughterhouses are far more diligent than that guy.
No doubt the animal welfare regulates include sections that insist that the personnel using the equipment are trained in the use and maintenance of said equipment. Again, Ninja Rabbi fallacy.
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 12:30:53 PM
since Grandin's reply is about the rate of loss of blood.
Uh, no it isn't :huh:
Quote from: Slargos on June 17, 2011, 12:32:42 PM
Quote from: HVC on June 17, 2011, 12:30:06 PM
Quote from: Slargos on June 17, 2011, 12:28:17 PM
I am curious: If it's found through careful and empirical study that animals do in fact suffer more from Kosher/Halal slaughter (either or both) than from the use of the stun bolt, would you folks who are currently viciously against the removal of this exception relent? Or is it more important to consider the religious implications than animal "rights".
i would. i'd also expect the politicians to now go after the factory farms and actually moniter slaughter houses since the deem animal welfare so important now.
By the same token I expect you're one of those people who cried that USA could not intervene in Kosovo "since they didn't intervene in Rwanda".
It's a ridiculous argument, and it also assumes that because halal slaughter is now illegal, that it will be vigorously pursued.
A lot of these regulations are more meant to steer public opinion rather than expected to be followed to the letter immediately after being passed.
i really would change my opnion. i would just know that they went throught the trouble not becasue of the cause but becasue who the cause inconvenienced.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 12:28:59 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 12:25:44 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 12:21:07 PM
If these devices don't work in laboratory conditions, why should we expect them to work in the slaughter house? And again, the methodology very well may be flawed with the New Zealand study do to improper tools and techniques.
One german guy was sloppy with his stunner. He used this possibly non-functioning stunner to conclude that stunners don't work. He later concludes that his stunner didn't work after the work is done and his work is repeated many times coming to the opposite conclusion he did.
Incorrect. The author said it may have functioned incorrectly. When did put this caveat on his experimentation? If some Germans are sloppy with it in a scientific experiment, what does that say about some high school drop out doing this 3,000 times a day?
It seems that every other study repeating his work comes to the opposite conclusion. This may be the reason he concluded that his stunner didn't work.
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 12:32:53 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 17, 2011, 12:27:33 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 12:25:44 PM
Tne german guy was sloppy with his stunner. He used this possibly non-functioning stunner to conclude that stunners don't work. He later concludes that his stunner didn't work after the work is done and his work is repeated many times coming to the opposite conclusion he did.
No doubt the workers earning minimum wage in non-kosher industrial slaughterhouses are far more diligent than that guy.
No doubt the animal welfare regulates include sections that insist that the personnel using the equipment are trained in the use and maintenance of said equipment. Again, Ninja Rabbi fallacy.
There is a falacy but it's not called "Ninja Rabbi".
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 12:31:31 PM
Quote from: Slargos on June 17, 2011, 12:28:17 PM
I am curious: If it's found through careful and empirical study that animals do in fact suffer more from Kosher/Halal slaughter (either or both) than from the use of the stun bolt, would you folks who are currently viciously against the removal of this exception relent? Or is it more important to consider the religious implications than animal "rights".
I was curious about the opposite actually. We have you who hates Jews, and Viking and Marty who hate all religions. All three of you have made it abundantly clear that this is about religion rather then say, law or science.
Nonsense.
While I enjoy the fact that the kikes get their panties in a bunch over this, I wouldn't support the ban if it can be concluded that kike-killing the animals is just as "humane" as pounding them in the brain.
The way I see it, slaughter by exanguination is either permitted or it is not. There is no room in a secular society for these kinds of religious exceptions.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 12:31:31 PM
Quote from: Slargos on June 17, 2011, 12:28:17 PM
I am curious: If it's found through careful and empirical study that animals do in fact suffer more from Kosher/Halal slaughter (either or both) than from the use of the stun bolt, would you folks who are currently viciously against the removal of this exception relent? Or is it more important to consider the religious implications than animal "rights".
I was curious about the opposite actually. We have you who hates Jews, and Viking and Marty who hate all religions. All three of you have made it abundantly clear that this is about religion rather then say, law or science.
That is untrue with respect to me. I object to any special exemptions for religion in addition to laws targeted at specific religions.
Quote from: Slargos on June 17, 2011, 12:35:44 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 12:31:31 PM
Quote from: Slargos on June 17, 2011, 12:28:17 PM
I am curious: If it's found through careful and empirical study that animals do in fact suffer more from Kosher/Halal slaughter (either or both) than from the use of the stun bolt, would you folks who are currently viciously against the removal of this exception relent? Or is it more important to consider the religious implications than animal "rights".
I was curious about the opposite actually. We have you who hates Jews, and Viking and Marty who hate all religions. All three of you have made it abundantly clear that this is about religion rather then say, law or science.
Nonsense.
While I enjoy the fact that the kikes get their panties in a bunch over this, I wouldn't support the ban if it can be concluded that kike-killing the animals is just as "humane" as pounding them in the brain.
The way I see it, slaughter by exanguination is either permitted or it is not. There is no room in a secular society for these kinds of religious exceptions.
Slaughter by exsanguination is not the issue. Both methods employ it. In both cases the animal is bleed out while alive.
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 12:32:53 PM
No doubt the animal welfare regulates include sections that insist that the personnel using the equipment are trained in the use and maintenance of said equipment.
No doubt there are regs like that.
So when new guy gets on the job, they take an hour or two to walk through all the equipment and procedures, and then sign a form saying they've complied.
See if you actually cared about the problem you would be focusing your efforts on enforcing the regs as they exist and addressing the real causes of abuse. But that would cost time, money and effort, whereas targeting an exemption that benefits an unpopular minority does not. this is 1% science, 99% politics.
Quote from: HVC on June 17, 2011, 12:34:32 PM
Quote from: Slargos on June 17, 2011, 12:32:42 PM
Quote from: HVC on June 17, 2011, 12:30:06 PM
Quote from: Slargos on June 17, 2011, 12:28:17 PM
I am curious: If it's found through careful and empirical study that animals do in fact suffer more from Kosher/Halal slaughter (either or both) than from the use of the stun bolt, would you folks who are currently viciously against the removal of this exception relent? Or is it more important to consider the religious implications than animal "rights".
i would. i'd also expect the politicians to now go after the factory farms and actually moniter slaughter houses since the deem animal welfare so important now.
By the same token I expect you're one of those people who cried that USA could not intervene in Kosovo "since they didn't intervene in Rwanda".
It's a ridiculous argument, and it also assumes that because halal slaughter is now illegal, that it will be vigorously pursued.
A lot of these regulations are more meant to steer public opinion rather than expected to be followed to the letter immediately after being passed.
i really would change my opnion. i would just know that they went throught the trouble not becasue of the cause but becasue who the cause inconvenienced.
It just blows my mind that you'd actually believe a European government would pass laws to "inconvenience" the Jews. It would be a distant possibility in Eastern Europe, but certainly not in the civilized parts.
It's hard enough to pass laws regulating the insanities of muslims, let alone touching the Jews.
You know, as the supposed resident religion hater, I don't really understand why people are so opposed to the idea of "special exemptions" based on religious practice.
I mean, I am supposed to be the anti-religious one, but I have no problem at all with the idea that the state in many cases should make reasonable accommodation for peoples religious practices. The alternative is so much worse, IMO.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 12:37:25 PM
Quote from: Slargos on June 17, 2011, 12:35:44 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 12:31:31 PM
Quote from: Slargos on June 17, 2011, 12:28:17 PM
I am curious: If it's found through careful and empirical study that animals do in fact suffer more from Kosher/Halal slaughter (either or both) than from the use of the stun bolt, would you folks who are currently viciously against the removal of this exception relent? Or is it more important to consider the religious implications than animal "rights".
I was curious about the opposite actually. We have you who hates Jews, and Viking and Marty who hate all religions. All three of you have made it abundantly clear that this is about religion rather then say, law or science.
Nonsense.
While I enjoy the fact that the kikes get their panties in a bunch over this, I wouldn't support the ban if it can be concluded that kike-killing the animals is just as "humane" as pounding them in the brain.
The way I see it, slaughter by exanguination is either permitted or it is not. There is no room in a secular society for these kinds of religious exceptions.
Slaughter by exsanguination is not the issue. Both methods employ it. In both cases the animal is bleed out while alive.
Why do you need to muddle it other than for the sake of being an argumentative bitch? You know what I'm talking about.
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 12:36:58 PM
That is untrue with respect to me. I object to any special exemptions for religion in addition to laws targeted at specific religions.
Why did you post the big poster with the words "Imagine a world with out religion"?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 17, 2011, 12:34:04 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 12:30:53 PM
since Grandin's reply is about the rate of loss of blood.
Uh, no it isn't :huh:
yes it is, her Ninja-Jew-To used for animal slaughter is more efficient at cutting the thought. The Johnson study shows that the pain is not due to loss of blood, but rather due to cutting of the nerves.
Quote from: Slargos on June 17, 2011, 12:39:02 PM
Why do you need to muddle it other than for the sake of being an argumentative bitch? You know what I'm talking about.
Most of the time I really don't. Most of the time you are really boring and I kind of just skim what you wrote. Do people's eyes glaze over when you talk? Mostly it's just "Bork bork bork Jews. Bork bork. Jews bork bork."
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2011, 12:38:45 PM
You know, as the supposed resident religion hater, I don't really understand why people are so opposed to the idea of "special exemptions" based on religious practice.
I mean, I am supposed to be the anti-religious one, but I have no problem at all with the idea that the state in many cases should make reasonable accommodation for peoples religious practices. The alternative is so much worse, IMO.
And I am religious, yet I don't see a need for the state to accommodate me. The whole notion of accommodating the religious seems baroque to me. Enough people swear by the Paedophile that they should get special exceptions. But what about my fervent belief in the Cookie Monster and His Commands that all cookies must be set free, and that no man shall pass a law that demands payment in exchange for Cookies?
By all rights, I should be allowed to take whatever Cookies I want from store shelves. My religion DEMANDS it.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 12:42:14 PM
Quote from: Slargos on June 17, 2011, 12:39:02 PM
Why do you need to muddle it other than for the sake of being an argumentative bitch? You know what I'm talking about.
Most of the time I really don't. Most of the time you are really boring and I kind of just skim what you wrote. Do people's eyes glaze over when you talk? Mostly it's just "Bork bork bork Jews. Bork bork. Jews bork bork."
Do you ever talk to people outside your immediate family? How would you know what a normal reaction is to talking about Jews?
Quote from: Slargos on June 17, 2011, 12:42:25 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2011, 12:38:45 PM
You know, as the supposed resident religion hater, I don't really understand why people are so opposed to the idea of "special exemptions" based on religious practice.
I mean, I am supposed to be the anti-religious one, but I have no problem at all with the idea that the state in many cases should make reasonable accommodation for peoples religious practices. The alternative is so much worse, IMO.
And I am religious, yet I don't see a need for the state to accommodate me. The whole notion of accommodating the religious seems baroque to me. Enough people swear by the Paedophile that they should get special exceptions. But what about my fervent belief in the Cookie Monster and His Commands that all cookies must be set free, and that no man shall pass a law that demands payment in exchange for Cookies?
By all rights, I should be allowed to take whatever Cookies I want from store shelves. My religion DEMANDS it.
You live in a country with an established state church.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 17, 2011, 12:38:05 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 12:32:53 PM
No doubt the animal welfare regulates include sections that insist that the personnel using the equipment are trained in the use and maintenance of said equipment.
No doubt there are regs like that.
So when new guy gets on the job, they take an hour or two to walk through all the equipment and procedures, and then sign a form saying they've complied.
See if you actually cared about the problem you would be focusing your efforts on enforcing the regs as they exist and addressing the real causes of abuse. But that would cost time, money and effort, whereas targeting an exemption that benefits an unpopular minority does not. this is 1% science, 99% politics.
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.
Quote from: Slargos on June 17, 2011, 12:43:24 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 12:42:14 PM
Quote from: Slargos on June 17, 2011, 12:39:02 PM
Why do you need to muddle it other than for the sake of being an argumentative bitch? You know what I'm talking about.
Most of the time I really don't. Most of the time you are really boring and I kind of just skim what you wrote. Do people's eyes glaze over when you talk? Mostly it's just "Bork bork bork Jews. Bork bork. Jews bork bork."
Do you ever talk to people outside your immediate family? How would you know what a normal reaction is to talking about Jews?
At least once a week.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 12:39:05 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 12:36:58 PM
That is untrue with respect to me. I object to any special exemptions for religion in addition to laws targeted at specific religions.
Why did you post the big poster with the words "Imagine a world with out religion"?
Yes, and I told you that I posted it responding to a off-topic post by the brain.
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 12:44:36 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 17, 2011, 12:38:05 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 12:32:53 PM
No doubt the animal welfare regulates include sections that insist that the personnel using the equipment are trained in the use and maintenance of said equipment.
No doubt there are regs like that.
So when new guy gets on the job, they take an hour or two to walk through all the equipment and procedures, and then sign a form saying they've complied.
See if you actually cared about the problem you would be focusing your efforts on enforcing the regs as they exist and addressing the real causes of abuse. But that would cost time, money and effort, whereas targeting an exemption that benefits an unpopular minority does not. this is 1% science, 99% politics.
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.
It is an extremely untenable position yet for the sake of this argument it is swallowed whole. I have no doubt as to why.
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.
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 12:45:31 PM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 12:48:01 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 12:45:31 PM
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
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 12:49:59 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 12:48:01 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 12:45:31 PM
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?
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 12:44:36 PM
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 17, 2011, 12:47:07 PM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 12:53:17 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 12:49:59 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 12:48:01 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 12:45:31 PM
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.
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 12:54:14 PM
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! :lol:
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.
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.
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?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 17, 2011, 12:53:39 PM
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.
Quote from: HVC on June 17, 2011, 01:01:15 PM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 01:03:13 PM
Quote from: HVC on June 17, 2011, 01:01:15 PM
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 17, 2011, 12:57:41 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 12:54:14 PM
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! :lol:
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.
Quote from: HVC on June 17, 2011, 01:01:15 PM
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.
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 01:09:33 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 17, 2011, 12:57:41 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 12:54:14 PM
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! :lol:
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.
The scientific method includes doing an experiment to test a certain technique without actually having anyone who know how to properly do the technique (or even the correct tools!) That's completely asinine. You have to have a human element since you testing a human action.
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 01:10:36 PM
Quote from: HVC on June 17, 2011, 01:01:15 PM
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.
:( there goes my plan.
I have firmosis too, since we're sharing. nuts to gettting that fixed.
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 12:56:18 PM
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.
I think your hatred of religion has blinded you to this issue of animal cruelty, which doesn't seem to exist in this case.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 01:14:35 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 01:09:33 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 17, 2011, 12:57:41 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 12:54:14 PM
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! :lol:
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.
The scientific method includes doing an experiment to test a certain technique without actually having anyone who know how to properly do the technique (or even the correct tools!) That's completely asinine. You have to have a human element since you testing a human action.
As I stated above. You define the technique explicitly and then you follow that definition.
But, to get a bit pedantic. Johnson did not study kosher and halal slaughter, he tested the claim by kosher and halal apologists that pain is minimal. He accounted for the Grandin's long sharp knife by confirming that the pain was due to cut nerves in the neck and that the pain was persistent, serious and could only be prevented by stunning the animal first.
Quote from: HVC on June 17, 2011, 01:16:11 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 01:10:36 PM
Quote from: HVC on June 17, 2011, 01:01:15 PM
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.
:( there goes my plan.
I have firmosis too, since we're sharing. nuts to gettting that fixed.
Sex is much much better afterwards. If you have fimosis, get it fixed, just avoid having the "less than Ninja" Surgeon do it first only to have the whole thing repeated a month later where the Ninja Surgeon did it right.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 01:17:58 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 12:56:18 PM
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.
I think your hatred of religion has blinded you to this issue of animal cruelty, which doesn't seem to exist in this case.
Please tell me, how many extra seconds of death pain should animal suffer because god says so?
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 01:22:24 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 01:17:58 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 12:56:18 PM
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.
I think your hatred of religion has blinded you to this issue of animal cruelty, which doesn't seem to exist in this case.
Please tell me, how many extra seconds of death pain should animal suffer because god says so?
17
Quote from: Barrister on June 17, 2011, 01:24:05 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 01:22:24 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 01:17:58 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 12:56:18 PM
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.
I think your hatred of religion has blinded you to this issue of animal cruelty, which doesn't seem to exist in this case.
Please tell me, how many extra seconds of death pain should animal suffer because god says so?
17
Well, Johnson suggests that the number might be as high as 120.
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 01:18:46 PM
As I stated above. You define the technique explicitly and then you follow that definition.
But, to get a bit pedantic. Johnson did not study kosher and halal slaughter, he tested the claim by kosher and halal apologists that pain is minimal. He accounted for the Grandin's long sharp knife by confirming that the pain was due to cut nerves in the neck and that the pain was persistent, serious and could only be prevented by stunning the animal first.
If you don't know how to do the technique then you really can't experiment with it. It's like offering a blind man a rifle and testing it's accuracy based on how well he shoots.
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 01:22:24 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 01:17:58 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 12:56:18 PM
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.
I think your hatred of religion has blinded you to this issue of animal cruelty, which doesn't seem to exist in this case.
Please tell me, how many extra seconds of death pain should animal suffer because god says so?
I'm neither a Muslim or a Jew.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 01:25:54 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 01:18:46 PM
As I stated above. You define the technique explicitly and then you follow that definition.
But, to get a bit pedantic. Johnson did not study kosher and halal slaughter, he tested the claim by kosher and halal apologists that pain is minimal. He accounted for the Grandin's long sharp knife by confirming that the pain was due to cut nerves in the neck and that the pain was persistent, serious and could only be prevented by stunning the animal first.
If you don't know how to do the technique then you really can't experiment with it. It's like offering a blind man a rifle and testing it's accuracy based on how well he shoots.
No, It's like offering a non-shooter a rifle and a manual and testing it's accuracy when it is mounted in a fixed position.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 01:27:05 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 01:22:24 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 01:17:58 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 12:56:18 PM
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.
I think your hatred of religion has blinded you to this issue of animal cruelty, which doesn't seem to exist in this case.
Please tell me, how many extra seconds of death pain should animal suffer because god says so?
I'm neither a Muslim or a Jew.
That's not answering the question and avoiding replying to my arguments.
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 01:29:27 PM
That's not answering the question and avoiding replying to my arguments.
It's not really my business to know. I'm neither a ninja or a Rabbi. Of course, it's a loaded question.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 01:32:33 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 01:29:27 PM
That's not answering the question and avoiding replying to my arguments.
It's not really my business to know. I'm neither a ninja or a Rabbi. Of course, it's a loaded question.
Then I suggest you explain why you think the question is unfair?
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 01:28:32 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 01:25:54 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 01:18:46 PM
As I stated above. You define the technique explicitly and then you follow that definition.
But, to get a bit pedantic. Johnson did not study kosher and halal slaughter, he tested the claim by kosher and halal apologists that pain is minimal. He accounted for the Grandin's long sharp knife by confirming that the pain was due to cut nerves in the neck and that the pain was persistent, serious and could only be prevented by stunning the animal first.
If you don't know how to do the technique then you really can't experiment with it. It's like offering a blind man a rifle and testing it's accuracy based on how well he shoots.
No, It's like offering a non-shooter a rifle and a manual and testing it's accuracy when it is mounted in a fixed position.
Kind of with viking on this.
Using that anaology, the response that they need a ninja rabbi to do the test is like claiming that the rifle didn't shoot straight because they didn't use an expert sniper who knew how to account for the quirks of that rifle to mitigate the results.
When in fact there is no reason to suppose that everyone out there doing halal butchering is some kind of expert.
I find the idea that an expertly cut neck is painless pretty hard to believe - and to the extent that I might be convinced, it would be dependent on some extremely strictly controlled, nearly perfectly ideal circumstances. *if* the knife is insanely sharp, and *if* the cut is perfectly made, and *if* the knife down not gouge, and *if* the animal remains still...then maybe the pain is limited.
But is that how most halal and kosher meat is processed? Are we that certain that the typical Jewish or Muslim butcher is a lot closer to that Cow Whisperer model, or is it closer to the Agriwhatever model from Indiana, where they are processing a lot of animals pretty fast, without much in the way of modern mechanization to help them, and the guy doing the cutting is probably not taking that much time per animal?
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 01:09:33 PM
The point of the scientific method is that I don't have to figure out what bias the Ninja Rabbi effect might introduce.
The point of the scientific method is to control for alternate explanations of the results. The EEG is just measuring electrical stimulus. It can't tell you whether the severity of nerve response is being caused because any of the factors that Grandin raises or what the result would be if different equipment and techniques were used.
QuoteBasically, 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.
Wrong. It is without question that the practices in the test differ significantly and materially from the practices actually used. The test used the wrong equipment in the wrong way. It has nothing to do with using superhuman skill. It has to do with generating realistic and accurate test conditions for what you are purporting to measure. This is basic 7th grade science.
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2011, 01:37:17 PM
Using that anaology, the response that they need a ninja rabbi to do the test is like claiming that the rifle didn't shoot straight because they didn't use an expert sniper who knew how to account for the quirks of that rifle to mitigate the results.
No that doesn't come close to capturing it.
It would be like having an untrained person who never handled a weapon shoot a pistol and then using those test results to conclude that an average trained G.I. couldn't hit the same target with a military rifle.
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 01:28:32 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 01:25:54 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 01:18:46 PM
As I stated above. You define the technique explicitly and then you follow that definition.
But, to get a bit pedantic. Johnson did not study kosher and halal slaughter, he tested the claim by kosher and halal apologists that pain is minimal. He accounted for the Grandin's long sharp knife by confirming that the pain was due to cut nerves in the neck and that the pain was persistent, serious and could only be prevented by stunning the animal first.
If you don't know how to do the technique then you really can't experiment with it. It's like offering a blind man a rifle and testing it's accuracy based on how well he shoots.
No, It's like offering a non-shooter a rifle and a manual and testing it's accuracy when it is mounted in a fixed position.
You really are baffling me here. If you want to test a technique used by a trained professional with specialized tools vs work down by an unskilled laborer using a different tool you'll want to get someone who is trained and equipped for the first technique. According to you, using someone who knows what they are doing and are properly equipped would be somehow bias in a study of professionals using proper tools. What is even more perplexing is that you insist that cases where the bolt is used improperly shouldn't be considered, while the dismissal of the German study is based entirely on the allegation that the bolt was used inproperly!
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 01:33:40 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 01:32:33 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 01:29:27 PM
That's not answering the question and avoiding replying to my arguments.
It's not really my business to know. I'm neither a ninja or a Rabbi. Of course, it's a loaded question.
Then I suggest you explain why you think the question is unfair?
It's like me asking "How many animals have to die for the sake of science".
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 17, 2011, 01:39:17 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 01:09:33 PM
The point of the scientific method is that I don't have to figure out what bias the Ninja Rabbi effect might introduce.
The point of the scientific method is to control for alternate explanations of the results. The EEG is just measuring electrical stimulus. It can't tell you whether the severity of nerve response is being caused because any of the factors that Grandin raises or what the result would be if different equipment and techniques were used.
QuoteBasically, 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.
Wrong. It is without question that the practices in the test differ significantly and materially from the practices actually used. The test used the wrong equipment in the wrong way. It has nothing to do with using superhuman skill. It has to do with generating realistic and accurate test conditions for what you are purporting to measure. This is basic 7th grade science.
Human factors such as skill, mood, feeling, emotion etc. are not repeatable and definable for testing. Your excuse is the same one homeopathists, acupuncturists, aromatherapists, chiropractors etc. use to explain why the repeated scientific tests of their methods have repeatedly shown that they don't work.
Johnsons peer reviewed work deals with the issue of method when it shows (according to the new scientist, since none of us have actually read the actual paper, "#¤%¤"#¤"# pay online journals) that the pain is not caused by the cutting of skin, sinew or muscle, but rather the cutting of the nerves itself meaning the technique is not a significant factor. It appears that all other factors causing no pain, the cutting of the nerve causes great pain.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 01:45:28 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 01:33:40 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 01:32:33 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 01:29:27 PM
That's not answering the question and avoiding replying to my arguments.
It's not really my business to know. I'm neither a ninja or a Rabbi. Of course, it's a loaded question.
Then I suggest you explain why you think the question is unfair?
It's like me asking "How many animals have to die for the sake of science".
Only in the sense that the question is asked here on this forum.
- the technique of halal or kosher slaughter was not tested, the claim that cutting the neck and letting the animal bleed to death was painless was tested. Johnson concluded that it is painful.
- human factors are removed from experiments to make the tests repeatable and so that other scientists can repeat the experiments to either confirm or disconfirm the results.
- the german results were disconfirmed by multiple and repeated tests done of the 30 years since the german study was done.
- that the stunner was faulty was speculated by the author of the german study who had repudiated his results.
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2011, 01:37:17 PM
Kind of with viking on this.
Using that anaology, the response that they need a ninja rabbi to do the test is like claiming that the rifle didn't shoot straight because they didn't use an expert sniper who knew how to account for the quirks of that rifle to mitigate the results.
When in fact there is no reason to suppose that everyone out there doing halal butchering is some kind of expert.
I find the idea that an expertly cut neck is painless pretty hard to believe - and to the extent that I might be convinced, it would be dependent on some extremely strictly controlled, nearly perfectly ideal circumstances. *if* the knife is insanely sharp, and *if* the cut is perfectly made, and *if* the knife down not gouge, and *if* the animal remains still...then maybe the pain is limited.
But is that how most halal and kosher meat is processed? Are we that certain that the typical Jewish or Muslim butcher is a lot closer to that Cow Whisperer model, or is it closer to the Agriwhatever model from Indiana, where they are processing a lot of animals pretty fast, without much in the way of modern mechanization to help them, and the guy doing the cutting is probably not taking that much time per animal?
It is professional skill. Like a carpenter or plumber. http://www.thereportergroup.org/article.aspx?aID=443 According to this it takes a year of training. Judging the efficacy of such person would require the use of that person's skills. Not going up to a guy like me and saying "Raz, here's a chart of a cow. Here's where we want you to cut. Go find a knife and get to it".
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 01:48:20 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 01:45:28 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 01:33:40 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 01:32:33 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 01:29:27 PM
That's not answering the question and avoiding replying to my arguments.
It's not really my business to know. I'm neither a ninja or a Rabbi. Of course, it's a loaded question.
Then I suggest you explain why you think the question is unfair?
It's like me asking "How many animals have to die for the sake of science".
Only in the sense that the question is asked here on this forum.
While we are on it, how many animals must be tortured for science?
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 01:53:03 PM
- the german results were disconfirmed by multiple and repeated tests done of the 30 years since the german study was done.
- that the stunner was faulty was speculated by the author of the german study who had repudiated his results.
You are adding certainty where there was none. Where are these other tests anyway?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 01:54:04 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2011, 01:37:17 PM
Kind of with viking on this.
Using that anaology, the response that they need a ninja rabbi to do the test is like claiming that the rifle didn't shoot straight because they didn't use an expert sniper who knew how to account for the quirks of that rifle to mitigate the results.
When in fact there is no reason to suppose that everyone out there doing halal butchering is some kind of expert.
I find the idea that an expertly cut neck is painless pretty hard to believe - and to the extent that I might be convinced, it would be dependent on some extremely strictly controlled, nearly perfectly ideal circumstances. *if* the knife is insanely sharp, and *if* the cut is perfectly made, and *if* the knife down not gouge, and *if* the animal remains still...then maybe the pain is limited.
But is that how most halal and kosher meat is processed? Are we that certain that the typical Jewish or Muslim butcher is a lot closer to that Cow Whisperer model, or is it closer to the Agriwhatever model from Indiana, where they are processing a lot of animals pretty fast, without much in the way of modern mechanization to help them, and the guy doing the cutting is probably not taking that much time per animal?
It is professional skill. Like a carpenter or plumber. http://www.thereportergroup.org/article.aspx?aID=443 According to this it takes a year of training.
Yeah, that sure sounds like it has plenty of rigorous and scientific control on who become a ninja halal butcher! :lmfao:
Sounds more like a double secret club where the most important attribute to success is who you know. That article certainly does nothing to re-assure me that the people doing the butchering are careful to inflict as little pain on the animal as possible.
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 01:46:47 PM
Human factors such as skill, mood, feeling, emotion etc. are not repeatable and definable for testing.
The type of knife, its sharpness, the methods used for restraint, and cutting are all repeatable and definable. And all were not done correctly in this study.
Skill is also easily definiable and repeatable. In this case by status as a certified shochet. If one for example wants to test the efficacy of a certain kind of medical procedure or administration that must be carried out by a doctor or nurse, then one would not test that procedure by having an untrained layperson do it.
The other factors are not at issue.
QuoteJohnsons peer reviewed work deals with the issue of method when it shows (according to the new scientist, since none of us have actually read the actual paper, "#¤%¤"#¤"# pay online journals) that the pain is not caused by the cutting of skin, sinew or muscle, but rather the cutting of the nerves itself meaning the technique is not a significant factor.
Johnson's work is right here: http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/14427783/631769305/name/slaughter-pain.ac.pdf
What it actually says is that the cutting procedure employed resulted in heightened levels of certain kinds of EEG frequencies believed to be associated with pain experiences. It also claims that the result is at least in part the result of the cutting, and not other associated stimuli like blood loss. It does NOT isolate cutting technique as a causal factor. All of the factors Grandin discusses relate to nerve response and thus are capable of causing the EEG results reported in the study. The only way to isolate those possible factors is to control for them by designing the study to test actual kosher slaughter technique. This was not done.
As a result of this thread, I now cannot get the image of ninja rabbi out of my head.
from the fao
http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/X6909E/x6909e09.htm
QuoteReligious or ritual slaughter (Halal and Kosher)
Most developed and many developing countries of the world require by law an animal to be rendered unconscious before it is slaughtered. This is in order to ensure that the animal does not suffer pain during slaughter. However, exceptions are made for the Jewish (Kosher) and Muslim (Halal) slaughter of livestock. Here stunning generally is not allowed and the animal is bled directly using a sharp knife to cut the throat and sever the main blood vessels. This results in sudden and massive loss of blood with loss of consciousness and death. However, many authorities consider that religious slaughter can be very unsatisfactory and that the animal may not be rendered unconscious and suffer considerable discomfort and pain in the slaughter process.
A number of factors must be given serious consideration before this type of slaughter is acceptable: -
1. Animals that are slaughtered according to Kosher or Halal requirements should be securely restrained, particularly the head and neck, before cutting the throat. Movement results in a poor cut, bad bleeding, slow loss of consciousness (if at all) and pain. This has serious implications for animal welfare. The knife that is used to cut the throat and the carotid and jugular blood vessels must be razor sharp and without blemishes and damage. This is to ensure a swift, smooth cut across the throat behind the jaw and to ensure immediate and maximum gush of blood. Poor bleeding causes slow loss of consciousness and reduces meat quality.
2. Animals should not be shackled and hoisted before bleeding. This causes them severe discomfort and stress. Hoisting should be done only after the animal has lost consciousness Restraining equipment should be comfortable for the animal.
3. Operator competence is of great importance in order to carry out satisfactory religious slaughter, and the authorities should license all slaughter personnel. A poor technique will result in great suffering and cruelty to the animal. Religious slaughter should be carried out paying attention to detail and ensuring the method, equipment and operators are correct. The slaughter process is slow.
The captive bolt gun is suitable for this stunning when using the mushroom shaped head of the bolt (Fig. 55). The mushroom gun is an improvement on the plain bolt, as this bolt does not penetrate the brain and cause death. This should be more acceptable to the religious authorities, and its use would encourage more humane slaughter amongst Muslims in developing countries, thereby improving animal welfare.
Fortunately, many Muslim authorities accept some forms of pre-slaughter stunning. Many Muslim authorities permit electric stunning of cattle, sheep and poultry, whose meat is destined for Muslim communities, because the animals subjected to this stunning method would recover if no bleeding was carried out. Electric stunning is also the method of choice in meat exporting countries where stunning of slaughter animals is required by law, for export to Muslim countries. Similarly, Muslim minorities in countries with stringent animal welfare regulations are allowed to use Halal slaughter methods, but in combination with electrical stunning.
Any kind of prestunning for livestock to be slaughtered according to the Jewish Kosher method has not yet been accepted.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 17, 2011, 02:01:49 PM
What it actually says is that the cutting procedure employed resulted in heightened levels of certain kinds of EEG frequencies believed to be associated with pain experiences. It also claims that the result is at least in part the result of the cutting, and not other associated stimuli like blood loss. It does NOT isolate cutting technique as a causal factor. All of the factors Grandin discusses relate to nerve response and thus are capable of causing the EEG results reported in the study. The only way to isolate those possible factors is to control for them by designing the study to test actual kosher slaughter technique. This was not done.
It seems to me to be a fairly trivial thing to do; one doesn't have to repeat the entire experiment to verify or falsify specific findings.
I know there hasn't been time to do such studies, but I think someone who wants to repudiate a scientific study needs to do more than say "it might have made a difference of they had done things differently, in a manner more consistent with the way Jews (but not, perhaps, Muslims) do them." I think the NZ study puts the ball in the court of those desiring the exception, and speculating about what might have been done wrong in the NZ study doesn't answer the question.
wikipedia on wilhelm schulze
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Schulze_%28professor_of_veterinary_medicine%29
QuoteWilhelm Schulze (born 10 December 1920 in Leipzig– 30 December 2002) was a German professor of veterinary medicine, director of the University of Veterinary Medicine Hanover (1966–68, 1978–80 and 1980-81[1]) and a specialist for pigs.
Schulze studied veterinary medicine at Leipzig University and at Hanover University and became a professor (1950–56) and dean (1952–55) in Leipzig. In 1957 he was appointed a professor in Hanover and established a reputable clinic specializing on pigs.[1] In 1968 he was a founder of the "International Pig Veterinary Society" (IPVS).[2] His dedication to this species earned him the respectful title "Pigs-Schulze" ("Schweine-Schulze") by students, colleagues and vets.[1] Schulze was awarded honorary degrees of the Free University of Berlin, the University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, the University of Warsaw and Leipzig University. On August 24, 2006, the university decided to posthumously name a prize after him.[3]
Between 1974 and 1978 Schulze and his colleagues carried out a study at the School of Veterinary Medicine, Hannover University in Germany. The study: 'Attempts to Objectify Pain and Consciousness in Conventional (captive bolt pistol stunning) and Ritual (knife) Methods of Slaughtering Sheep and Calves'[4] is reported on islamic websites[5][6] to have concluded that "the Islamic way of slaughtering is the most humane method of slaughter and that captive bolt stunning, practiced in the West, causes severe pain to the animal".
Indeed, according to the study "these experiments on sheep and calves carried out within a clinic show that during a ritual slaughter, carried out according to the state of the art using hydraulically operated tilting equipment and a ritual cut, pain and suffering to the extent as has since long been generally associated in public with this kind of slaughter cannot be registered." However, the study notes that the "objective results presented for the captive bolt application in sheep (..) rather (..) indicates that the captive bolt device used is suspect" and that these initial "scientific findings and the results presented are only a very first contribution" and that they "need to be followed as a high priority by further investigations in the continuation of the scientific clarification of the issues of loss of pain and consciousness during slaughter of this kind with and without stunning using the same experimental approach with a representative number of grown cows of various breeds."
Viking, how does the deficient use of a captive bolt explain the low pain response used in the Kosher slaughter?
The Farm Animal Welfare Council's report
REPORT ON THE
WELFARE OF LIVESTOCK
WHEN SLAUGHTERED BY
RELIGIOUS METHODS
http://www.fawc.org.uk/pdf/old/livestock-report-1985.pdf
which summarizes up the knowledge as of 1985 and not only condemns the skill of the Ninja Rabbi's but also advocates the pre-stunning of all animals to be slaughtered.
Quote from: grumbler on June 17, 2011, 02:11:01 PM
I know there hasn't been time to do such studies, but I think someone who wants to repudiate a scientific study needs to do more than say "it might have made a difference of they had done things differently, in a manner more consistent with the way Jews (but not, perhaps, Muslims) do them." I think the NZ study puts the ball in the court of those desiring the exception, and speculating about what might have been done wrong in the NZ study doesn't answer the question.
:huh:
Grandin - who is an expert in this field - did exactly that. She pointed out specific ways in the methodology employed by the study would be likely to result in pain that would not occur if kosher-complaint methods were used.
In fact, long before the NZ study was done, Grandin and others had specifically pointed out the importance of using the long, rectangular, sharp blade, of using correct restraint, and of holding back the skin to prevent the wound from going back in the knife. Given the importance of these factors previously identified in the literature, it is clear that if the objective of the NZ study was to assess whether kosher slaughter in particular causes pain*, then the study was improperly designed.
*based on the summary, it was not; thus, this is not an attack on the NZ researchers, but on Viking's and others' improper attempt to use the results for a different purpose.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 02:23:27 PM
Viking, how does the deficient use of a captive bolt explain the low pain response used in the Kosher slaughter?
less than
more than
do you know what they mean? There is no absolute objective measure for pain, only relative
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 17, 2011, 02:30:29 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 17, 2011, 02:11:01 PM
I know there hasn't been time to do such studies, but I think someone who wants to repudiate a scientific study needs to do more than say "it might have made a difference of they had done things differently, in a manner more consistent with the way Jews (but not, perhaps, Muslims) do them." I think the NZ study puts the ball in the court of those desiring the exception, and speculating about what might have been done wrong in the NZ study doesn't answer the question.
:huh:
Grandin - who is an expert in this field - did exactly that. She pointed out specific ways in the methodology employed by the study would be likely to result in pain that would not occur if kosher-complaint methods were used.
In fact, long before the NZ study was done, Grandin and others had specifically pointed out the importance of using the long, rectangular, sharp blade, of using correct restraint, and of holding back the skin to prevent the wound from going back in the knife. Given the importance of these factors previously identified in the literature, it is clear that if the objective of the NZ study was to assess whether kosher slaughter in particular causes pain*, then the study was improperly designed.
*based on the summary, it was not; thus, this is not an attack on the NZ researchers, but on Viking's and others' improper attempt to use the results for a different purpose.
Grandin advocates stunning in general. Her kosher work is about reducing the pain as much as possible. Grandin's response to Johnsons study did not deal with the most significant result from Johnson, which is that the pain is there for up to two minutes regardless of method and is only prevented by stunning. Johnsons result is that pain continues even though the animal appears to be stunned when bleeding out. Every single organization concerned with animal welfare from the FAO to the Humane Slaughter Association advocates stunning.
You just continue to assert that despite rigorous peer review if they had only used a different knife or a ninja rabbi then the result would have been different and the animal would not have been lying immobile in pain for two minutes while it was bleeding out.
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 02:32:13 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 02:23:27 PM
Viking, how does the deficient use of a captive bolt explain the low pain response used in the Kosher slaughter?
less than
more than
do you know what they mean? There is no absolute objective measure for pain, only relative
Now you've done it. :weep:
Minsky will go ballistic now, for sure. :weep:
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 02:42:49 PM
. Grandin's response to Johnsons study did not deal with the most significant result from Johnson, which is that the pain is there for up to two minutes regardless of method and is only prevented by stunning. Johnsons result is that pain continues even though the animal appears to be stunned when bleeding out. . . .You just continue to assert that despite rigorous peer review if they had only used a different knife or a ninja rabbi then the result would have been different and the animal would not have been lying immobile in pain for two minutes while it was bleeding out.
The "most significant result from Johson" is not in fact a result from Johnson at all, as I already pointed out above. Ninja jokes are not a substitute for correct analysis.
http://www.fve.org/news/position_papers/animal_welfare/fve_02_104_slaughter_prior_stunning.pdf
A Position paper on the Slaughter without prior stunning from the FEDERATION OF VETERINARIANS OF EUROPE, note, they feel the need to place the text
QuoteFVE is of the opinion that the practice of slaughtering animals without prior stunning is
unacceptable under any circumstances
Just in case any Jewish Lawyers might want to twist the content.
http://www.uspca.co.uk/Policies%20and%20Handbooks/Welfare_policies_booklet.pdf
The USPCA handbook of policies says about religious slaughter, they are against it, obviously.
Quote3.9 Slaughter
3.9.1
The USPCA is opposed to the slaughter of any food animal without
rendering that animal insensible to pain and distress until death
supervenes.
The Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations (N. Ireland)
1996, states that all animals slaughtered in a slaughterhouse or knackers
yard must either be:-
* instantaneously slaughtered by means of a mechanically operated
instrument, or
* stunned by means of a mechanically operated instrument or an
instrument for stunning by electricity provided that
they are instantaneously rendered insensible to pain until death
supervenes, or
* they may be slaughtered by any other means specified in the
regulations, provided that the animals are again rendered insensible
to pain until death supervenes.
The 1996 Act exempts the Jewish method of slaughter, shechita, and
the Muslim method of slaughter, halal. While respecting individual
religious practices, the Society strongly opposes these exemptions on
welfare grounds The meat from animals killed in this way should be
clearly labelled.
Because of their temperament, farmed deer and other non-domesticated
species such as ostriches, are not amenable to transportation or
handling within normal licensed slaughterhouse systems.
The RSPCA on Religious slaughter
http://content.www.rspca.org.uk/cmsprd/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobnocache=false&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1232998853713&ssbinary=true
QuoteTheir recommendations were that: "Council considers that slaughter without pre-stunning is unacceptable and that the government should repeal the current exemption".
Grandin is not an expert in neurology or the nature of pain. She in an expert in animal slaughter. 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.
Not all kosher and halal butchers are Ninja Rabbis. In fact the studies done on the issue have found out that the stereotype is not the incompetent idiot with the stunner that misses more often than he hits that you present, but rather the reality is that the skill and care shown by kosher and halal butchers leave much to be desired. The protection that these two groups have gained from their religious affiliation has, if anything, resulting in sloppy and inconsistent adherence with the animal welfare laws they are still bound by not to mention routine cruelty and abuse in the cutting and exsanguination of animals. The extra minute or two of suffering the animal has as a result of the ideal cut (which johnson identifies) is nothing compared to the routine 3, 4, 5 and 6 minute dying times that investigations into kosher and halal butchers have found. Despite this well documented problem (identified by the many reports and opinions I have posted above) the kosher and halal apologists keep claiming that they have some magical 2 second dying time in which the animals don't actually feel any pain. I have to ask you, are you really so deluded?
This is not a matter of religion. I'd be happy for these butchers to pre-stun their animals and let them have their exemptions for the rest. If they weren't torturing animals I would not care. Just as I wouldn't care if they government didn't give a big chunk of my tax money to the norwegian lutheran church. But torture animals they do and take my money they do.
I don't think you would care if they were doing it for non-religious reasons.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 03:27:21 PM
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.
Quote from: DGuller on June 17, 2011, 02:07:20 PM
As a result of this thread, I now cannot get the image of ninja rabbi out of my head.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.icanhascheezburger.com%2Fcompletestore%2F2009%2F2%2F1%2F128780226011458243.jpg&hash=85e5a9dc1704bc9293c8f8309d9ead10aa612f90)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 17, 2011, 02:30:29 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 17, 2011, 02:11:01 PM
I know there hasn't been time to do such studies, but I think someone who wants to repudiate a scientific study needs to do more than say "it might have made a difference of they had done things differently, in a manner more consistent with the way Jews (but not, perhaps, Muslims) do them." I think the NZ study puts the ball in the court of those desiring the exception, and speculating about what might have been done wrong in the NZ study doesn't answer the question.
:huh:
Grandin - who is an expert in this field - did exactly that.
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.
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. :D
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 16, 2011, 04:19:44 PM
Stunned animals are also alive as they get carved up. :contract:
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.
Quote from: Cecil on June 17, 2011, 03:42:21 PM
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. :D
Go away, Jew-hater.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 11:40:54 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 11:05:15 AM
QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: dps on June 17, 2011, 03:52:19 PM
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.
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 03:31:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 03:27:21 PM
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.
Quote from: dps on June 17, 2011, 03:54:57 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 03:31:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 03:27:21 PM
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.
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 03:54:37 PM
Quote from: dps on June 17, 2011, 03:52:19 PM
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.
Quote from: dps on June 17, 2011, 03:57:55 PM
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.
Quote from: dps on June 17, 2011, 03:57:55 PM
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.
Quote from: dps on June 17, 2011, 03:54:57 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 03:31:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 03:27:21 PM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on June 17, 2011, 04:06:15 PM
Quote from: dps on June 17, 2011, 03:54:57 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 03:31:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 03:27:21 PM
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.
Quote from: Cecil on June 17, 2011, 03:42:21 PM
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. :D
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 04:20:37 PM
Quote from: Cecil on June 17, 2011, 03:42:21 PM
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. :D
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.
Quote from: Barrister on June 17, 2011, 04:06:15 PM
Viking has always been very consistent.
Yes I have.
Quote from: Barrister on June 17, 2011, 04:06:15 PMHe 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.
Quote from: Barrister on June 17, 2011, 04:06:15 PMHe 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.
Quote from: Barrister on June 17, 2011, 04:06:15 PM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 04:20:37 PM
Quote from: Cecil on June 17, 2011, 03:42:21 PM
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. :D
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. :lol:
Quote from: Slargos on June 17, 2011, 04:26:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 04:20:37 PM
Quote from: Cecil on June 17, 2011, 03:42:21 PM
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. :D
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.
This thread proves the vitality of Languish. :)
Quote from: grumbler on June 17, 2011, 03:41:44 PM
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.
Quote from: The Brain on June 17, 2011, 04:29:30 PM
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 :huh:
I'd just about pay someone to summarize the thread & highlight the more entertaining posts.
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 03:23:38 PM
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.
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 04:27:08 PM
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.
Quote from: derspiess on June 17, 2011, 04:43:32 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 17, 2011, 04:29:30 PM
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 :huh:
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").
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.
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 05:01:13 PM
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 17, 2011, 05:07:25 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 05:01:13 PM
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 17, 2011, 04:39:48 PM
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.
QuoteWhat 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.
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.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on June 17, 2011, 05:25:41 PM
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?
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on June 17, 2011, 05:25:41 PM
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.
Quote from: garbon on June 17, 2011, 05:39:16 PM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on June 17, 2011, 05:25:41 PM
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?
Because the Sky Fairy is tossing and turning at night worrying about how exactly you kill your dinner.
Quote from: The Brain on June 17, 2011, 05:41:37 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 17, 2011, 05:39:16 PM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on June 17, 2011, 05:25:41 PM
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?
Because the Sky Fairy is tossing and turning at night worrying about how exactly you kill your dinner.
Alright but our governments are supposedly secular.
In response to grumbler
The validity of the study is not in question. It's application and generalization to a matter it did not test is what is in question. The study itself provides no basis to conclude that the results would be identical or even similar if kosher protocol were used. Reaching that conclusion requires making the unwarranted and not very plausible assumption that the method and execution of the cutting makes no difference. The ball is the court of the proponent of the unproved hypothesis, just as it always should be.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on June 17, 2011, 05:25:41 PM
- Malthus and MM claiming they don't identify with Orthodox Jews here because M&MM don't keep kosher
There are many reasons I don't identify closely with orthodox Jews. ;). Kosher is very low on the list.
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 04:29:11 PM
*Like
It is within the scope of the responsibilities of government to make cruelty to animals illegal.
So much for scientific experimentation.
Quote from: garbon on June 17, 2011, 05:39:16 PM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on June 17, 2011, 05:25:41 PM
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?
@Garbon
Because freedom of religious practice has been fundamental cornerstone of human rights in the west for at least two centuries. As I am sure you are aware, religion plays an extremely important part in the history of humanity and in the lives of many today, and religious tenants held by minority groups can't be treated as simply an arbitrary preference that can just be ignored / suppressed where there is no compelling reason to do so. Thus divorcing halal slaughtering methods from its broader religion context is to disingenuously change the nature of the debate.
And in answer the broader question, I simply don't see that enough proof is out there to suggest that the shock method is so much more humane as to deny people a fundamental right Western society has so long strived for.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on June 17, 2011, 06:02:34 PM
@Garbon
Because freedom of religious practice has been fundamental cornerstone of human rights in the west for at least two centuries. As I am sure you are aware, religion plays an extremely important part in the history of humanity and in the lives of many today, and religious tenants held by minority groups can't be treated as simply an arbitrary preference that can just be ignored / suppressed where there is no compelling reason to do so. Thus divorcing halal slaughtering methods from its broader religion context is to disingenuously change the nature of the debate.
I don't think so at all. When calling into question whether there is a compelling reason to force a religious group to do something against their beliefs, I think it is only natural to call into question whether there is a compelling reason to put the imposition on anyone. Why should people miss out on privileges because they can't find it within themselves to have belief in a recognized faith?
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on June 17, 2011, 06:02:34 PM
And in answer the broader question, I simply don't see that enough proof is out there to suggest that the shock method is so much more humane as to deny people a fundamental right Western society has so long strived for.
If that's the case, why have such a law that restricts all non-believers? Do they not have rights as well?
Quote from: garbon on June 17, 2011, 06:10:23 PM
If that's the case, why have such a law that restricts all non-believers? Do they not have rights as well?
Your using the argument that is often used against gay marriage.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 06:24:42 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 17, 2011, 06:10:23 PM
If that's the case, why have such a law that restricts all non-believers? Do they not have rights as well?
Your using the argument that is often used against gay marriage.
Are you referring to the slippery slope that if you allow gay marriage, one should allow marrying animals and the like? :unsure:
Quote from: garbon on June 17, 2011, 06:10:23 PM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on June 17, 2011, 06:02:34 PM
@Garbon
Because freedom of religious practice has been fundamental cornerstone of human rights in the west for at least two centuries. As I am sure you are aware, religion plays an extremely important part in the history of humanity and in the lives of many today, and religious tenants held by minority groups can't be treated as simply an arbitrary preference that can just be ignored / suppressed where there is no compelling reason to do so. Thus divorcing halal slaughtering methods from its broader religion context is to disingenuously change the nature of the debate.
I don't think so at all. When calling into question whether there is a compelling reason to force a religious group to do something against their beliefs, I think it is only natural to call into question whether there is a compelling reason to put the imposition on anyone. Why should people miss out on privileges because they can't find it within themselves to have belief in a recognized faith?
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on June 17, 2011, 06:02:34 PM
And in answer the broader question, I simply don't see that enough proof is out there to suggest that the shock method is so much more humane as to deny people a fundamental right Western society has so long strived for.
If that's the case, why have such a law that restricts all non-believers? Do they not have rights as well?
Except what privileges of non-believers are being trampled upon here? Unless halal and kosher butchery techniques give Muslim and Jewish butchers a competitive business advantage that they can use to undercut their non-halal / kosher competitors (which AFAIK isn't the case), I don't see how anyone's rights are being restricted in any meaningful way. I mean, does anyone really have a deep yearning to slit the throat of a calf rather than use the shock method, all things being equal? To the extent that I would even think abuot it, it strikes me as a win-win pragmatic compromise, rather than an infringement of my rights.
But of course, my assumption is that religion is too potent and important a force for many humans to simply suppress it where there can't be reasonable accommodations made. Now if it were the case that kosher butchery was demonstrably noticeably worse on the animals than the shock method, or if this 'exemption' had significant impact on the liberty and/or livelihood of others, then I would be of a different opinion. But as that is not the case, I'll take the more pragmatic path, rather than the more ideological one.
Was rereading a collection of Bernard Lewis essays and came across the interesting fact that Hassidic Jews didn't exist before the 18th century.
Quote from: garbon on June 17, 2011, 06:29:20 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 06:24:42 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 17, 2011, 06:10:23 PM
If that's the case, why have such a law that restricts all non-believers? Do they not have rights as well?
Your using the argument that is often used against gay marriage.
Are you referring to the slippery slope that if you allow gay marriage, one should allow marrying animals and the like? :unsure:
No, that gay marriage is an "Extra" right. You are allowed to marry, but you must do so in the parameters of the law i.e. to a person of the opposite sex. Giving gays the right to marry the same sex would be an additional right.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on June 17, 2011, 06:52:35 PM
Except what privileges of non-believers are being trampled upon here? Unless halal and kosher butchery techniques give Muslim and Jewish butchers a competitive business advantage that they can use to undercut their non-halal / kosher competitors (which AFAIK isn't the case), I don't see how anyone's rights are being restricted in any meaningful way. I mean, does anyone really have a deep yearning to slit the throat of a calf rather than use the shock method, all things being equal? To the extent that I would even think abuot it, it strikes me as a win-win pragmatic compromise, rather than an infringement of my rights.
But of course, my assumption is that religion is too potent and important a force for many humans to simply suppress it where there can't be reasonable accommodations made. Now if it were the case that kosher butchery was demonstrably noticeably worse on the animals than the shock method, or if this 'exemption' had significant impact on the liberty and/or livelihood of others, then I would be of a different opinion. But as that is not the case, I'll take the more pragmatic path, rather than the more ideological one.
The right not to suffer unnecessary government intrusion into one's life. If one is already admitting that the shock method isn't necessarily so great, why force it on one segment on the population but not another? Why not make the reasonable accommodation for everyone?
Off the top of my head, I can think of two negatives of allowing for such religious exceptions.
1) It can inflame hatred of non-group members who see their actions curtailed by legislation whereas special interest religious groups are allowed free mobility. Not that such actions can make an average individual a full on bigot, but it shouldn't be surprising that some would look distastefully on privileges assigned to one group because they happen to believe/worship in the "right" way.
2) It helps to enhance the role that religious groups are allowed to play in politics.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 07:02:02 PM
No, that gay marriage is an "Extra" right. You are allowed to marry, but you must do so in the parameters of the law i.e. to a person of the opposite sex. Giving gays the right to marry the same sex would be an additional right.
Except that everyone would be free to engage in the "extra" right. Two straight men or two straight women could get married if same-sex marriages are allowed. :thumbsup:
The fact that it isn't a desired right by straight peopled doesn't make it a gay only privilege.
Quote from: derspiess on June 17, 2011, 04:43:32 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 17, 2011, 04:29:30 PM
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 :huh:
I'd just about pay someone to summarize the thread & highlight the more entertaining posts.
Summary:
Dutch lawmakers propose to ban kosher and halal slaughter of animals.
Marty and Slargos argue that kosher and halal slaughter cause the animals unnecessary pain, and therefore should be banned.
Raz and Malthus argue that kosher and halal slaughter don't cause the animals unnecessary pain, and therefore there is no justification for a ban.
Minsky argues that there isn't enough scientific evidence that kosher and halal slaughter cause unnecessary pain to justify a ban.
Barrister argues that even if kosher and halal slaughter cause the animals more pain than other methods, the principle of freedom of religion means that accomodation to the views of observant Jews and Moslems should be allowed.
I argue that regulation of slaughterhouses should only be concerned with food safety, and any pain suffered by the animals is irrelevant.
Arguments about what constitutes proper scientific evidence, about what freedom of religion should mean, about legal justifications for government regulations, and insults about bigotry, idiocy, and general asshattery abound.
Quote from: garbon on June 17, 2011, 07:12:46 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 07:02:02 PM
No, that gay marriage is an "Extra" right. You are allowed to marry, but you must do so in the parameters of the law i.e. to a person of the opposite sex. Giving gays the right to marry the same sex would be an additional right.
Except that everyone would be free to engage in the "extra" right. Two straight men or two straight women could get married if same-sex marriages are allowed. :thumbsup:
The fact that it isn't a desired right by straight peopled doesn't make it a gay only privilege.
That's the argument. I don't buy it, but there you go. Presumably you could also engage of the "extra" right of kosher slaughter.
Quote from: garbon on June 17, 2011, 05:39:16 PM
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?
I doubtr that the law specifies anything about religion elements, merely that the procedures called for in halal and kosher butchering (and yeah, I know there are real names for those procedures, but prefer the imprecise but identifiable labels) are allowed.
So you could presumably get trained in kosher butchering and butcher that way, though you couldn't call the product "kosher."
I argue that animals slaughtered by either halal or kosher methods, are equally tasty.
Quote from: grumbler on June 17, 2011, 08:58:47 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 17, 2011, 05:39:16 PM
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?
I doubtr that the law specifies anything about religion elements, merely that the procedures called for in halal and kosher butchering (and yeah, I know there are real names for those procedures, but prefer the imprecise but identifiable labels) are allowed.
So you could presumably get trained in kosher butchering and butcher that way, though you couldn't call the product "kosher."
Turns out I am wrong; only actual Jews and Muslims get the benefit of the exception in Britain:
QuoteSlaughter by a religious method
2. In this Schedule references to slaughter by a religious method are references to slaughter without the infliction of unnecessary suffering—
(a)by the Jewish method for the food of Jews by a Jew who holds a licence in accordance with Schedule 1 (which relates to the licensing of slaughtermen) and who is duly licensed—
(i) in England and Wales by the Rabbinical Commission referred to in Part IV of this Schedule; or
(ii) in Scotland by the Chief Rabbi; or
(b)by the Muslim method for the food of Muslims by a Muslim who holds a licence in accordance with Schedule 1.
http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/snsc-01314.pdf
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 02:42:21 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 16, 2011, 07:01:31 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 16, 2011, 03:46:28 PM
Yes, your silly ancient desert fairy tale tells you to torture animals. Your non-existent god is a sadist, I get that. You want me to respect your war criminal torturist paedophile murderer rapist bandit thief of a prophet, I get that. I'm sorry, but fuck you.
Ayesha's age at marriage is disputed.
Citations 173-76
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed#cite_note-181
those are all in arabic or farsi, not linked or just a reference to tariq ramadan. The traditional sources do cite her age as 6 or 7 when married and 9 when the marriage was consumated (after her illness when she lost her hair). If you aren't going to argue that she was an adult (as defined at the time) then you are merely obfuscating and ignoring the murder, torture, war crimes, aggression etc.etc.
Murder, torture, etc, whatever it was the 7th
century. Hell, I take my wars of aggression on a case by case basis even today.
As for Aisha
http://www.muslim.org/islam/aisha-age.htm
Quotethe Isaba, speaking of the Prophet's daughter Fatima, says that she was born five years before the Call and was about five years older than Aisha. This shows that Aisha must have been about ten years at the time of her betrothal to the Prophet, and not six years as she is generally supposed to be...
it was in the tenth year of the Call, i.e. the tenth year after the Holy Prophet Muhammad received his calling from God to his mission of prophethood, that his wife Khadija passed away, and the approach was made to Abu Bakr for the hand of his daughter Aisha. The hijra or emigration of the Holy Prophet to Madina took place three years later, and Aisha came to the household of the Holy Prophet in the second year after hijra. So if Aisha was born in the year of the Call, she would be ten years old at the time of the nikah and fifteen years old at the time of the consummation of the marriage.
Quote from: grumbler on June 17, 2011, 08:58:47 PM
I doubtr that the law specifies anything about religion elements, merely that the procedures called for in halal and kosher butchering (and yeah, I know there are real names for those procedures, but prefer the imprecise but identifiable labels) are allowed.
So you could presumably get trained in kosher butchering and butcher that way, though you couldn't call the product "kosher."
Yeah I was hoping (?) this would be the case but unfortunately as you have shown, it isn't that way in Britain. Just seems odd to me.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 07:58:46 PM
Presumably you could also engage of the "extra" right of kosher slaughter.
Alas, no. They wouldn't allow it.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 17, 2011, 05:48:03 PM
The validity of the study is not in question. It's application and generalization to a matter it did not test is what is in question. The study itself provides no basis to conclude that the results would be identical or even similar if kosher protocol were used. Reaching that conclusion requires making the unwarranted and not very plausible assumption that the method and execution of the cutting makes no difference. The ball is the court of the proponent of the unproved hypothesis, just as it always should be.
Just saw this. Sorry, but I don't buy it. The argument that "well, yes, the method used (copied directly from halal regulations, because halal was naturally the focus of their studies) caused pain, but doing the exact same thing with a slightly longer blade sharpened in a slightly different manner would have completely different results" simply isn't logically tenable. It may prove to be true, but it certainly isn't obviously true or even scientifically valid. It is like arguing that we understand the reflectivity of light striking a surface at a 45 degree angle, but its behavior is completely different at 46 degrees. You'd have to show that, not assume it.
Quote from: dps on June 17, 2011, 07:38:35 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 17, 2011, 04:43:32 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 17, 2011, 04:29:30 PM
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 :huh:
I'd just about pay someone to summarize the thread & highlight the more entertaining posts.
Summary:
Dutch lawmakers propose to ban kosher and halal slaughter of animals.
Marty and Slargos argue that kosher and halal slaughter cause the animals unnecessary pain, and therefore should be banned.
Raz and Malthus argue that kosher and halal slaughter don't cause the animals unnecessary pain, and therefore there is no justification for a ban.
Minsky argues that there isn't enough scientific evidence that kosher and halal slaughter cause unnecessary pain to justify a ban.
Barrister argues that even if kosher and halal slaughter cause the animals more pain than other methods, the principle of freedom of religion means that accomodation to the views of observant Jews and Moslems should be allowed.
I argue that regulation of slaughterhouses should only be concerned with food safety, and any pain suffered by the animals is irrelevant.
Arguments about what constitutes proper scientific evidence, about what freedom of religion should mean, about legal justifications for government regulations, and insults about bigotry, idiocy, and general asshattery abound.
I don't make that list? :blink: Did you even read this thread?
Quote from: Viking on June 18, 2011, 02:17:09 AM
Quote from: dps on June 17, 2011, 07:38:35 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 17, 2011, 04:43:32 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 17, 2011, 04:29:30 PM
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 :huh:
I'd just about pay someone to summarize the thread & highlight the more entertaining posts.
Summary:
Dutch lawmakers propose to ban kosher and halal slaughter of animals.
Marty and Slargos argue that kosher and halal slaughter cause the animals unnecessary pain, and therefore should be banned.
Raz and Malthus argue that kosher and halal slaughter don't cause the animals unnecessary pain, and therefore there is no justification for a ban.
Minsky argues that there isn't enough scientific evidence that kosher and halal slaughter cause unnecessary pain to justify a ban.
Barrister argues that even if kosher and halal slaughter cause the animals more pain than other methods, the principle of freedom of religion means that accomodation to the views of observant Jews and Moslems should be allowed.
I argue that regulation of slaughterhouses should only be concerned with food safety, and any pain suffered by the animals is irrelevant.
Arguments about what constitutes proper scientific evidence, about what freedom of religion should mean, about legal justifications for government regulations, and insults about bigotry, idiocy, and general asshattery abound.
I don't make that list? :blink: Did you even read this thread?
Yeah, but attributing the postion that a ban is justified to Marty and Slagos makes the idea sound worse than attributing it to you. ;)
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 17, 2011, 09:43:24 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2011, 02:42:21 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 16, 2011, 07:01:31 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 16, 2011, 03:46:28 PM
Yes, your silly ancient desert fairy tale tells you to torture animals. Your non-existent god is a sadist, I get that. You want me to respect your war criminal torturist paedophile murderer rapist bandit thief of a prophet, I get that. I'm sorry, but fuck you.
Ayesha's age at marriage is disputed.
Citations 173-76
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed#cite_note-181
those are all in arabic or farsi, not linked or just a reference to tariq ramadan. The traditional sources do cite her age as 6 or 7 when married and 9 when the marriage was consumated (after her illness when she lost her hair). If you aren't going to argue that she was an adult (as defined at the time) then you are merely obfuscating and ignoring the murder, torture, war crimes, aggression etc.etc.
Murder, torture, etc, whatever it was the 7th
century. Hell, I take my wars of aggression on a case by case basis even today.
As for Aisha
http://www.muslim.org/islam/aisha-age.htm
Quotethe Isaba, speaking of the Prophet's daughter Fatima, says that she was born five years before the Call and was about five years older than Aisha. This shows that Aisha must have been about ten years at the time of her betrothal to the Prophet, and not six years as she is generally supposed to be...
it was in the tenth year of the Call, i.e. the tenth year after the Holy Prophet Muhammad received his calling from God to his mission of prophethood, that his wife Khadija passed away, and the approach was made to Abu Bakr for the hand of his daughter Aisha. The hijra or emigration of the Holy Prophet to Madina took place three years later, and Aisha came to the household of the Holy Prophet in the second year after hijra. So if Aisha was born in the year of the Call, she would be ten years old at the time of the nikah and fifteen years old at the time of the consummation of the marriage.
By golly, maybe the muslims should be told that.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 07:02:02 PM
No, that gay marriage is an "Extra" right. You are allowed to marry, but you must do so in the parameters of the law i.e. to a person of the opposite sex. Giving gays the right to marry the same sex would be an additional right.
As garbon said, this wouldn't be an extra right for gays - everyone would have the right. Same with halal/kosher - either allow it for everybody or don't allow it at all.
That way the measure is weighted on its own merits ("is there a compelling reason to ban same sex marriage?" "is there a compelling reason to ban halal/kosher slaughter?") and not on whether some minority group has more privileges than another.
Quote from: dps on June 18, 2011, 02:58:44 AM
Yeah, but attributing the postion that a ban is justified to Marty and Slagos makes the idea sound worse than attributing it to you. ;)
:lol:
Well done, you fucking Jew.
A good summary. Although I would say that my position is actually "If it causes unnecessary pain, it should be banned" alternatively "It should be banned in order to fuck with the Semites". :P
Quote from: Barrister on June 17, 2011, 12:05:40 PM
Is that really how you wish to answer my question?
To answer you seriously, no, under Polish labour law the employer is not required to accommodate "special needs" of a religious employee. If you run a cantine for employees, you are not required to serve kosher, halal or vegan options, or serve fish on Fridays (ok I suppose they accommodate Discordians by usually serving pork on Fridays :yeah: - and throughout the rest of the week too). People applying for jobs where you are supposed to work on Fridays, Saturdays or Sundays do not get that day off because their religion prohibits work on that day. Some of the national holidays are of a religious nature (Easter Sunday and Monday, Pentecost, Corpus Christi, All Hallow's, two days of Christmas) but that's that - they are treated just like other holidays (e.g. Independence Day), and you can't come to work on Pentecost so you can get a day off on Ramadan or whatever.
Quote from: Slargos on June 18, 2011, 03:51:11 AM
Quote from: dps on June 18, 2011, 02:58:44 AM
Yeah, but attributing the postion that a ban is justified to Marty and Slagos makes the idea sound worse than attributing it to you. ;)
:lol:
Well done, you fucking Jew.
A good summary. Although I would say that my position is actually "If it causes unnecessary pain, it should be banned" alternatively "It should be banned in order to fuck with the Semites". :P
Anything that pisses off religious people is an extra bonus, yes. :P
Quote from: garbon on June 17, 2011, 09:51:38 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 07:58:46 PM
Presumably you could also engage of the "extra" right of kosher slaughter.
Alas, no. They wouldn't allow it.
What about the US? I did post an article that had a gentile Kosher butcher.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 18, 2011, 04:58:38 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 17, 2011, 09:51:38 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2011, 07:58:46 PM
Presumably you could also engage of the "extra" right of kosher slaughter.
Alas, no. They wouldn't allow it.
What about the US? I did post an article that had a gentile Kosher butcher.
The US doesn't pass laws because they hate Jews, or even Muslims.
Quote from: Viking on June 16, 2011, 04:32:50 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 16, 2011, 04:30:51 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 16, 2011, 04:28:13 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 16, 2011, 04:21:59 PMAgreed.
You and Slargos do have a lot in common.
We don't like retards who follow bronze age customs in the 21st century. Yes.
3rd Century BC greece was bronze age :contract:
1) You probably meant to say 6th and 5th centuries BC. The Hellenistic was not the hayday for homosexuality in Greece.
2) The Bronze Age ended half a millenium before what you are thinking of. At least.
Quote from: Queequeg on June 18, 2011, 09:20:20 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 16, 2011, 04:32:50 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 16, 2011, 04:30:51 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 16, 2011, 04:28:13 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 16, 2011, 04:21:59 PMAgreed.
You and Slargos do have a lot in common.
We don't like retards who follow bronze age customs in the 21st century. Yes.
3rd Century BC greece was bronze age :contract:
1) You probably meant to say 6th and 5th centuries BC. The Hellenistic was not the hayday for homosexuality in Greece.
2) The Bronze Age ended half a millenium before what you are thinking of. At least.
I guess we should throw away, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Euclid and the like. Bunch of Bronze age savages.
You are a tard.
Cause I know that BC doesn't stand for "Bronze age"?
Quote from: garbon on June 17, 2011, 05:39:16 PM
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?
I think that you (and possibly Berkut, based on some of his posts earlier in the thread) are operating off of a mistaken assumption. In general, a government that has general police powers (which in the US, individual states do, but the Federal government, in theory, doesn't) don't have to have an compelling reason to enact laws. They can do so just on the vague notion that it seems like a good idea, for completely trivial reasons, or even just on the whims of the legislators. Consider that every state has an official state bird. Is there any compelling reason that a state should have an official bird? No, but that doesn't make such legislation invalid or unconstitutional. The only time that a state has to demonstrate a compelling reason for a law is if it infringes on constitutionally protected freedoms--and even then only if it's challanged in court, in which case, if the courts, if they find that the state lacks a sufficiently compelling reason, will not allow the law to be enforced in a manner that violates a constitutionally protected right. Assuming that neither you nor I are observant Jews, enforcing a law against slaughtering animals in the manner required by keeping kosher wouldn't infringe on our right to the free exercise of religion, so it would be enforceble against us, but not against an observant Jew (though we might be able to make a case under the equal protection clause). In practice, legislatures will often right exemptions for certain groups into the legislation in the first place, just to avoid court fights over the issue.
Since cutting the throat of an animal with out electrocuting it or bashing it in the head is vile torture for bloodthirsty gods, I wonder what else is torture? When I go fishing, am being a vile torturer? :blush:
Quote from: Razgovory on June 18, 2011, 02:36:55 PM
Since cutting the throat of an animal with out electrocuting it or bashing it in the head is vile torture for bloodthirsty gods, I wonder what else is torture? When I go fishing, am being a vile torturer? :blush:
Your posting here is torture.
Quote from: dps on June 18, 2011, 02:18:00 PM
I think that you (and possibly Berkut, based on some of his posts earlier in the thread) are operating off of a mistaken assumption. In general, a government that has general police powers (which in the US, individual states do, but the Federal government, in theory, doesn't) don't have to have an compelling reason to enact laws. They can do so just on the vague notion that it seems like a good idea, for completely trivial reasons, or even just on the whims of the legislators. Consider that every state has an official state bird. Is there any compelling reason that a state should have an official bird? No, but that doesn't make such legislation invalid or unconstitutional. The only time that a state has to demonstrate a compelling reason for a law is if it infringes on constitutionally protected freedoms--and even then only if it's challanged in court, in which case, if the courts, if they find that the state lacks a sufficiently compelling reason, will not allow the law to be enforced in a manner that violates a constitutionally protected right. Assuming that neither you nor I are observant Jews, enforcing a law against slaughtering animals in the manner required by keeping kosher wouldn't infringe on our right to the free exercise of religion, so it would be enforceble against us, but not against an observant Jew (though we might be able to make a case under the equal protection clause). In practice, legislatures will often right exemptions for certain groups into the legislation in the first place, just to avoid court fights over the issue.
:huh: I haven't a clue as to what position you are actually taking here.
Governments have the powers given them by the people, in the US. Laws which authorize compulsion (though not symbolic laws like ones designating state birds or commemorative days) must fall within the assigned powers of the government or they will be declared invalid by the courts. This isn't a matter of constitutionally-protected freedoms; if any government from the town to the nation passed a law requiring everyone to wear red shirts or be thrown in jail, it would be stayed immediately, and not because the people subject to the law have a constitutionally-protected right to wear non-red shirts. The government could order its employees to wear red shirts, though. The reason it could do the latter and not the former is because the latter falls within its powers and the former does not.
I think you are, as someone said, "operating off of a mistaken assumption" if you think that governments can pass laws "just on the whims of the legislators." That is theoretically true in Britain, perhaps, but not in the US.
Quote from: grumbler on June 18, 2011, 03:52:52 PM
Governments have the powers given them by the people, in the US. Laws which authorize compulsion (though not symbolic laws like ones designating state birds or commemorative days) must fall within the assigned powers of the government or they will be declared invalid by the courts.
You missed his point. The US federal government, at least in theory, has to be able to point to a specific authorization for every law. That is, it operates on a "what is not specifically permitted is forbidden" model. The states have a generic police power to pass laws, so long as those laws don't conflict with the state constitution or the federal constitution. That is, unless something is specifically forbidden, it is permitted.
Quote from: grumbler on June 17, 2011, 10:27:31 PM
The argument that "well, yes, the method used (copied directly from halal regulations, because halal was naturally the focus of their studies) caused pain, but doing the exact same thing with a slightly longer blade sharpened in a slightly different manner would have completely different results" simply isn't logically tenable. It may prove to be true, but it certainly isn't obviously true or even scientifically valid. It is like arguing that we understand the reflectivity of light striking a surface at a 45 degree angle, but its behavior is completely different at 46
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.
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.
You at the office on the Sabbath? tsk tsk.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 18, 2011, 10:36:33 PM
You at the office on the Sabbath? tsk tsk.
Sun is down.
Quote from: Neil on June 16, 2011, 08:13:57 PM
Quote from: Slargos on June 16, 2011, 07:27:36 PM
Do you ever worry that your Jew blood may be impairing your judgement? :hmm:
Not really. After all, it's not blood that impairs judgement, but rather culture.
For once, you got something right.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 18, 2011, 10:36:33 PM
You at the office on the Sabbath? tsk tsk.
I am the only jew in Languish that observe shabbat.
You should know that.
Quote from: Siege on June 19, 2011, 01:12:50 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 18, 2011, 10:36:33 PM
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?
Quote from: Slargos on June 19, 2011, 03:09:05 AM
Quote from: Siege on June 19, 2011, 01:12:50 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 18, 2011, 10:36:33 PM
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....
Quote from: Siege on June 19, 2011, 01:12:50 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 18, 2011, 10:36:33 PM
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 18, 2011, 10:34:04 PM
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.
QuoteIf 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!" :D
Quote from: HVC on June 17, 2011, 01:01:15 PM
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 :contract:
PS: seems nicer this way;)
Quote from: Slargos on June 19, 2011, 03:09:05 AM
Quote from: Siege on June 19, 2011, 01:12:50 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 18, 2011, 10:36:33 PM
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.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 19, 2011, 03:06:26 PM
Quote from: HVC on June 17, 2011, 01:01:15 PM
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 :contract:
:lol: So unkosher.
Funny how easy to understand is Portuguese.
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.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 19, 2011, 03:06:26 PM
Quote from: HVC on June 17, 2011, 01:01:15 PM
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 :contract:
my grand dad was a pig crastrator. Perhaps knife skills pass down through generations?
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.
Quote from: Weijun on June 19, 2011, 10:43:31 PM
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.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgatsome.com%2Fimages%2Fobvioustroll.jpg&hash=1486fb1d2d3c3df09d8ef68f7a1279ce57b1ea8f)
Quote from: grumbler on June 19, 2011, 10:50:55 PM
Quote from: Weijun on June 19, 2011, 10:43:31 PM
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.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgatsome.com%2Fimages%2Fobvioustroll.jpg&hash=1486fb1d2d3c3df09d8ef68f7a1279ce57b1ea8f)
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?
Quote from: Weijun on June 19, 2011, 11:20:25 PM
Is not all "animals rights" legislation necessarily religious (including secular religions) in intent?
This is easy to answer: no.
Quote from: WeijunWhy should the law treat animals as anything other than chattel property?
http://www.grandin.com/welfare/animals.are.not.things.html
Quote from: Siege on June 19, 2011, 05:38:47 PM
Quote from: Slargos on June 19, 2011, 03:09:05 AM
Quote from: Siege on June 19, 2011, 01:12:50 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 18, 2011, 10:36:33 PM
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.
But making a phonecall is? WTF?
Quote from: LaCroix on June 20, 2011, 02:46:12 AM
Quote from: WeijunWhy should the law treat animals as anything other than chattel property?
http://www.grandin.com/welfare/animals.are.not.things.html
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.
You could describe all preferences as being religious, but it changes the meaning of the word and more importantly it doesn't say anything.
Quote from: The Brain on June 20, 2011, 03:49:40 AM
You could describe all preferences as being religious, but it changes the meaning of the word and more importantly it doesn't say anything.
Both Marxism and Environmentalism offer complete moral and ritual systems (including holidays!), so there is a strong case that they should be considered secular religions. Calling Marxism a "preference" radically understates how much of a way of life it is.
Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, call it all "irrational preferences." Why should one group of people be allowed foist their irrational preferences on everyone through laws that flagrantly violate people's property rights? How is animal rights legislation different in kind from the Buggery Act of 1533 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buggery_Act)?
I still want to know if fishing is inhumane.
Quote from: Weijun on June 20, 2011, 04:03:21 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 20, 2011, 03:49:40 AM
You could describe all preferences as being religious, but it changes the meaning of the word and more importantly it doesn't say anything.
Both Marxism and Environmentalism offer complete moral and ritual systems (including holidays!), so there is a strong case that they should be considered secular religions. Calling Marxism a "preference" radically understates how much of a way of life it is.
Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, call it all "irrational preferences." Why should one group of people be allowed foist their irrational preferences on everyone through laws that flagrantly violate people's property rights? How is animal rights legislation different in kind from the Buggery Act of 1533 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buggery_Act)?
Do you consider your preference regarding property rights irrational?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 20, 2011, 04:15:38 AM
I still want to know if fishing is inhumane.
Causing harm isn't inhumane, causing unnecessary harm is inhumane.
I'm now in Amsterdam. Should I participate in: pogrom?
Quote from: The Brain on June 20, 2011, 04:25:54 AM
Quote from: Weijun on June 20, 2011, 04:03:21 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 20, 2011, 03:49:40 AM
You could describe all preferences as being religious, but it changes the meaning of the word and more importantly it doesn't say anything.
Both Marxism and Environmentalism offer complete moral and ritual systems (including holidays!), so there is a strong case that they should be considered secular religions. Calling Marxism a "preference" radically understates how much of a way of life it is.
Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, call it all "irrational preferences." Why should one group of people be allowed foist their irrational preferences on everyone through laws that flagrantly violate people's property rights? How is animal rights legislation different in kind from the Buggery Act of 1533 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buggery_Act)?
Do you consider your preference regarding property rights irrational?
Property rights are irrational only insofar as liberty is irrational.
Who the fuck is that cretin? Another Dorsey's sock puppet?
Quote from: Viking on June 20, 2011, 04:40:24 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 20, 2011, 04:15:38 AM
I still want to know if fishing is inhumane.
Causing harm isn't inhumane, causing unnecessary harm is inhumane.
I'm causing harm unnecessarily when fishing. If I want to eat a fish, I can easily buy one (no idea if they are stunned before they are butchered. Probably not), but instead I do it an extremely inefficiently way by using a hook and bait. Sometimes, I use a bait fish. I do this all for my own enjoyment. Most of the time, after I catch a fish I let it go. Catch and release. Now, I ask you, is this inhumane?
Do you ever go fishing?
A source you used earlier, the RSPCA is interested in pain caused to fish, at least according to this Times article. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1045717.ece
Quote from: Weijun on June 20, 2011, 05:00:30 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 20, 2011, 04:25:54 AM
Quote from: Weijun on June 20, 2011, 04:03:21 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 20, 2011, 03:49:40 AM
You could describe all preferences as being religious, but it changes the meaning of the word and more importantly it doesn't say anything.
Both Marxism and Environmentalism offer complete moral and ritual systems (including holidays!), so there is a strong case that they should be considered secular religions. Calling Marxism a "preference" radically understates how much of a way of life it is.
Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, call it all "irrational preferences." Why should one group of people be allowed foist their irrational preferences on everyone through laws that flagrantly violate people's property rights? How is animal rights legislation different in kind from the Buggery Act of 1533 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buggery_Act)?
Do you consider your preference regarding property rights irrational?
Property rights are irrational only insofar as liberty is irrational.
I didn't ask about property rights though. My impression is that you prefer fairly absolute property rights, but since property rights are some of the most limited rights in western countries (for instance the state takes a big bite out of my property every year which means I cannot do with it as I please) you come across as a bit of a kook.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 20, 2011, 05:27:06 AM
I'm causing harm unnecessarily when fishing. If I want to eat a fish, I can easily buy one (no idea if they are stunned before they are butchered. Probably not), but instead I do it an extremely inefficiently way by using a hook and bait. Sometimes, I use a bait fish. I do this all for my own enjoyment. Most of the time, after I catch a fish I let it go. Catch and release. Now, I ask you, is this inhumane?
Do you ever go fishing?
A source you used earlier, the RSPCA is interested in pain caused to fish, at least according to this Times article. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1045717.ece
You don't know much about icelanders do you?
Killing and causing pain is not the issue for me, it's the unnecessary inflicting of pain. The animal is entitled to be treated in such a manner that it's death is as painless and quick as possible.
You still didn't answer my question. I am inflicting unnecessary pain in my stone age fishing methods and largely for my desire for entertainment. Are my actions as described in my previous post acceptable?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 20, 2011, 05:41:50 AM
You still didn't answer my question. I am inflicting unnecessary pain in my stone age fishing methods and largely for my desire for entertainment. Are my actions as described in my previous post acceptable?
If you do it for the purpose of harming the fish then I think it is unacceptable.
Quote from: The Brain on June 20, 2011, 05:29:43 AM
Quote from: Weijun on June 20, 2011, 05:00:30 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 20, 2011, 04:25:54 AM
Quote from: Weijun on June 20, 2011, 04:03:21 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 20, 2011, 03:49:40 AM
You could describe all preferences as being religious, but it changes the meaning of the word and more importantly it doesn't say anything.
Both Marxism and Environmentalism offer complete moral and ritual systems (including holidays!), so there is a strong case that they should be considered secular religions. Calling Marxism a "preference" radically understates how much of a way of life it is.
Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, call it all "irrational preferences." Why should one group of people be allowed foist their irrational preferences on everyone through laws that flagrantly violate people's property rights? How is animal rights legislation different in kind from the Buggery Act of 1533 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buggery_Act)?
Do you consider your preference regarding property rights irrational?
Property rights are irrational only insofar as liberty is irrational.
I didn't ask about property rights though. My impression is that you prefer fairly absolute property rights, but since property rights are some of the most limited rights in western countries (for instance the state takes a big bite out of my property every year which means I cannot do with it as I please) you come across as a bit of a kook.
It is easy to forget how few rights Europeans have. Even in the U.S., liberty has been increasingly circumscribed since the Great War. My point is that the right to property is a fundamental right, so any encroachment should be resisted, and whenever possible, bad laws should be rolled back.
Even with the most sacred principles (e.g. free speech), government will carve out practical exceptions. However (borrowing from
Roe v. Wade), the state should demonstrate a compelling interest before violating a person's fundamental rights. "Animal rights" legislation simply fails to meet that standard. That some people consider treating animals in certain ways immoral is no more a compelling reason to prohibit behavior than that other people considering men sleeping with men immoral.
Quote from: Martinus on June 20, 2011, 05:01:49 AM
Who the fuck is that cretin? Another Dorsey's sock puppet?
No one's sock puppet. Pleased to meet you too.
Quote from: Weijun on June 20, 2011, 05:51:22 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 20, 2011, 05:29:43 AM
Quote from: Weijun on June 20, 2011, 05:00:30 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 20, 2011, 04:25:54 AM
Quote from: Weijun on June 20, 2011, 04:03:21 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 20, 2011, 03:49:40 AM
You could describe all preferences as being religious, but it changes the meaning of the word and more importantly it doesn't say anything.
Both Marxism and Environmentalism offer complete moral and ritual systems (including holidays!), so there is a strong case that they should be considered secular religions. Calling Marxism a "preference" radically understates how much of a way of life it is.
Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, call it all "irrational preferences." Why should one group of people be allowed foist their irrational preferences on everyone through laws that flagrantly violate people's property rights? How is animal rights legislation different in kind from the Buggery Act of 1533 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buggery_Act)?
Do you consider your preference regarding property rights irrational?
Property rights are irrational only insofar as liberty is irrational.
I didn't ask about property rights though. My impression is that you prefer fairly absolute property rights, but since property rights are some of the most limited rights in western countries (for instance the state takes a big bite out of my property every year which means I cannot do with it as I please) you come across as a bit of a kook.
It is easy to forget how few rights Europeans have. Even in the U.S., liberty has been increasingly circumscribed since the Great War. My point is that the right to property is a fundamental right, so any encroachment should be resisted, and whenever possible, bad laws should be rolled back.
Even with the most sacred principles (e.g. free speech), government will carve out practical exceptions. However (borrowing from Roe v. Wade), the state should demonstrate a compelling interest before violating a person's fundamental rights. "Animal rights" legislation simply fails to meet that standard. That some people consider treating animals in certain ways immoral is no more a compelling reason to prohibit behavior than that other people considering men sleeping with men immoral.
Well, at least I can send first class mail with whatever company I choose. :(
But back on topic, am I correct to assume that you consider your own preference regarding property rights rational?
Quote from: Viking on June 20, 2011, 05:47:57 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 20, 2011, 05:41:50 AM
You still didn't answer my question. I am inflicting unnecessary pain in my stone age fishing methods and largely for my desire for entertainment. Are my actions as described in my previous post acceptable?
If you do it for the purpose of harming the fish then I think it is unacceptable.
So it's only cruel if I do it for the purpose of harming it? What about because I like to catch fish? Also, fish caught be amateur anglers are often cleaned while still alive. I believe this is often the case in commercial fish processing. I don't think they employ a method to minimize pain, though presumably such a method is possible.
Quote from: The Brain on June 20, 2011, 06:05:48 AM
Quote from: Weijun on June 20, 2011, 05:51:22 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 20, 2011, 05:29:43 AM
Quote from: Weijun on June 20, 2011, 05:00:30 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 20, 2011, 04:25:54 AM
Quote from: Weijun on June 20, 2011, 04:03:21 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 20, 2011, 03:49:40 AM
You could describe all preferences as being religious, but it changes the meaning of the word and more importantly it doesn't say anything.
Both Marxism and Environmentalism offer complete moral and ritual systems (including holidays!), so there is a strong case that they should be considered secular religions. Calling Marxism a "preference" radically understates how much of a way of life it is.
Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, call it all "irrational preferences." Why should one group of people be allowed foist their irrational preferences on everyone through laws that flagrantly violate people's property rights? How is animal rights legislation different in kind from the Buggery Act of 1533 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buggery_Act)?
Do you consider your preference regarding property rights irrational?
Property rights are irrational only insofar as liberty is irrational.
I didn't ask about property rights though. My impression is that you prefer fairly absolute property rights, but since property rights are some of the most limited rights in western countries (for instance the state takes a big bite out of my property every year which means I cannot do with it as I please) you come across as a bit of a kook.
It is easy to forget how few rights Europeans have. Even in the U.S., liberty has been increasingly circumscribed since the Great War. My point is that the right to property is a fundamental right, so any encroachment should be resisted, and whenever possible, bad laws should be rolled back.
Even with the most sacred principles (e.g. free speech), government will carve out practical exceptions. However (borrowing from Roe v. Wade), the state should demonstrate a compelling interest before violating a person's fundamental rights. "Animal rights" legislation simply fails to meet that standard. That some people consider treating animals in certain ways immoral is no more a compelling reason to prohibit behavior than that other people considering men sleeping with men immoral.
Well, at least I can send first class mail with whatever company I choose. :(
But back on topic, am I correct to assume that you consider your own preference regarding property rights rational?
Property rights are rationally derived from the right to liberty (some argue
vice versa). Either way, the two are inextricably linked. That liberty is a fundamental right is an assumption. One need not accept it, but without this assumption, one can throw all republican institutions out the window.
Oh God, this isn't going to be one these damn libertarian spiels is it?
Quote from: Weijun on June 20, 2011, 06:25:44 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 20, 2011, 06:05:48 AM
Quote from: Weijun on June 20, 2011, 05:51:22 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 20, 2011, 05:29:43 AM
Quote from: Weijun on June 20, 2011, 05:00:30 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 20, 2011, 04:25:54 AM
Quote from: Weijun on June 20, 2011, 04:03:21 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 20, 2011, 03:49:40 AM
You could describe all preferences as being religious, but it changes the meaning of the word and more importantly it doesn't say anything.
Both Marxism and Environmentalism offer complete moral and ritual systems (including holidays!), so there is a strong case that they should be considered secular religions. Calling Marxism a "preference" radically understates how much of a way of life it is.
Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, call it all "irrational preferences." Why should one group of people be allowed foist their irrational preferences on everyone through laws that flagrantly violate people's property rights? How is animal rights legislation different in kind from the Buggery Act of 1533 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buggery_Act)?
Do you consider your preference regarding property rights irrational?
Property rights are irrational only insofar as liberty is irrational.
I didn't ask about property rights though. My impression is that you prefer fairly absolute property rights, but since property rights are some of the most limited rights in western countries (for instance the state takes a big bite out of my property every year which means I cannot do with it as I please) you come across as a bit of a kook.
It is easy to forget how few rights Europeans have. Even in the U.S., liberty has been increasingly circumscribed since the Great War. My point is that the right to property is a fundamental right, so any encroachment should be resisted, and whenever possible, bad laws should be rolled back.
Even with the most sacred principles (e.g. free speech), government will carve out practical exceptions. However (borrowing from Roe v. Wade), the state should demonstrate a compelling interest before violating a person's fundamental rights. "Animal rights" legislation simply fails to meet that standard. That some people consider treating animals in certain ways immoral is no more a compelling reason to prohibit behavior than that other people considering men sleeping with men immoral.
Well, at least I can send first class mail with whatever company I choose. :(
But back on topic, am I correct to assume that you consider your own preference regarding property rights rational?
Property rights are rationally derived from the right to liberty (some argue vice versa). Either way, the two are inextricably linked. That liberty is a fundamental right is an assumption. One need not accept it, but without this assumption, one can throw all republican institutions out the window.
I'm going to take this as a "yes", even though you avoided the question. I'm not trying to be a dick btw, I'm just trying to find out what you think since I don't yet know you as well as I know the other posters.
I read that as a "no".
Quote from: Martinus on June 20, 2011, 05:01:49 AM
Who the fuck is that cretin? Another Dorsey's sock puppet?
Not a faggot, so his opinions are more worthy of respect than yours already.
Quote from: Weijun on June 20, 2011, 06:25:44 AM
Property rights are rationally derived from the right to liberty (some argue vice versa). Either way, the two are inextricably linked. That liberty is a fundamental right is an assumption. One need not accept it, but without this assumption, one can throw all republican institutions out the window.
You should throw all republican institutions out the window. A republic is incorrect.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 20, 2011, 06:27:41 AM
Oh God, this isn't going to be one these damn libertarian spiels is it?
I am going to go out on a limb and guess that I find your hostility to libertarianism as puzzling as most Europeans find American hostility to socialism.
Quote from: The Brain on June 20, 2011, 06:34:37 AM
Quote from: Weijun on June 20, 2011, 06:25:44 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 20, 2011, 06:05:48 AM
Quote from: Weijun on June 20, 2011, 05:51:22 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 20, 2011, 05:29:43 AM
Quote from: Weijun on June 20, 2011, 05:00:30 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 20, 2011, 04:25:54 AM
Quote from: Weijun on June 20, 2011, 04:03:21 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 20, 2011, 03:49:40 AM
You could describe all preferences as being religious, but it changes the meaning of the word and more importantly it doesn't say anything.
Both Marxism and Environmentalism offer complete moral and ritual systems (including holidays!), so there is a strong case that they should be considered secular religions. Calling Marxism a "preference" radically understates how much of a way of life it is.
Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, call it all "irrational preferences." Why should one group of people be allowed foist their irrational preferences on everyone through laws that flagrantly violate people's property rights? How is animal rights legislation different in kind from the Buggery Act of 1533 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buggery_Act)?
Do you consider your preference regarding property rights irrational?
Property rights are irrational only insofar as liberty is irrational.
I didn't ask about property rights though. My impression is that you prefer fairly absolute property rights, but since property rights are some of the most limited rights in western countries (for instance the state takes a big bite out of my property every year which means I cannot do with it as I please) you come across as a bit of a kook.
It is easy to forget how few rights Europeans have. Even in the U.S., liberty has been increasingly circumscribed since the Great War. My point is that the right to property is a fundamental right, so any encroachment should be resisted, and whenever possible, bad laws should be rolled back.
Even with the most sacred principles (e.g. free speech), government will carve out practical exceptions. However (borrowing from Roe v. Wade), the state should demonstrate a compelling interest before violating a person's fundamental rights. "Animal rights" legislation simply fails to meet that standard. That some people consider treating animals in certain ways immoral is no more a compelling reason to prohibit behavior than that other people considering men sleeping with men immoral.
Well, at least I can send first class mail with whatever company I choose. :(
But back on topic, am I correct to assume that you consider your own preference regarding property rights rational?
Property rights are rationally derived from the right to liberty (some argue vice versa). Either way, the two are inextricably linked. That liberty is a fundamental right is an assumption. One need not accept it, but without this assumption, one can throw all republican institutions out the window.
I'm going to take this as a "yes", even though you avoided the question. I'm not trying to be a dick btw, I'm just trying to find out what you think since I don't yet know you as well as I know the other posters.
I do want to give you a straight answer - honestly. However, the issue is too complex to give an unqualified yes.
Property rights as a fundamental right is rational, given certain assumptions about liberty. These assumptions about liberty are ideological and/or require a certain amount of faith. Unlike religious beliefs, however, these assumptions must be shared by a healthy majority of the citizenry for a republic to function properly.
Quote from: Neil on June 20, 2011, 06:46:48 AM
Quote from: Weijun on June 20, 2011, 06:25:44 AM
Property rights are rationally derived from the right to liberty (some argue vice versa). Either way, the two are inextricably linked. That liberty is a fundamental right is an assumption. One need not accept it, but without this assumption, one can throw all republican institutions out the window.
You should throw all republican institutions out the window. A republic is incorrect.
Depending on the starting assumptions, this view could be valid. The divine right of kings does not allow for liberty, just duty. A proletarian dictatorship certainly has no place for individual liberty.
Quote from: Weijun on June 20, 2011, 07:19:09 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 20, 2011, 06:27:41 AM
Oh God, this isn't going to be one these damn libertarian spiels is it?
I am going to go out on a limb and guess that I find your hostility to libertarianism as puzzling as most Europeans find American hostility to socialism.
Most Americans aren't really all that hostile to socialism though. They just don't want it called that. If you suggest a minimum wage, welfare, employment insurance and government-funded health care to an American without using the word 'socialism', you'll get a fair bit of agreement.
Libertarian ideals are a harder sell, simply because in these days of comfort and a relatively sensitive morality, it's hard to justify the law of the jungle and the gold standard.
Quote from: Viking on June 20, 2011, 02:53:44 AM
But making a phonecall is? WTF?
I am not sure why that is weird. You can hardly expect an ancient tribal society to spend 1/7th of the week not defending itself and expect it to still be around thousands of years later.
Quote from: Weijun on June 20, 2011, 07:19:09 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 20, 2011, 06:27:41 AM
Oh God, this isn't going to be one these damn libertarian spiels is it?
I am going to go out on a limb and guess that I find your hostility to libertarianism as puzzling as most Europeans find American hostility to socialism.
I'm an American. We've had more of our share of libertarianism on this board, or as it's commonly know here, Librarytarianism.
Quote from: Valmy on June 20, 2011, 07:51:08 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 20, 2011, 02:53:44 AM
But making a phonecall is? WTF?
I am not sure why that is weird. You can hardly expect an ancient tribal society to spend 1/7th of the week not defending itself and expect it to still be around thousands of years later.
:lol:
Quote from: Weijun on June 19, 2011, 10:43:31 PM
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?
I don't agree with the proposition that animals have any natural rights. However, that doesn't mean that either treating them as having right analogous to those of human beings or treating them merely as chattel property are the only alternatives (especially as that formulation, while working for domesticated animals, would leave us in a quandary as to how to treat wild animals). And frankly, even if animals are treated simply as chattel property, well, even I'm not as much a property rights absolutist as you appear to be.
Quote from: Viking on June 20, 2011, 05:47:57 AM
If you do it for the purpose of harming the fish then I think it is unacceptable.
If that's your standard, then you shouldn't have any problem with the methods of slaughter used to satify the requirements of kosher and halal. The purpose of those isn't to inflict harm on the animals. Well, except to the extent that killing them is the purpose, but then that's true for any method of slaughter.
While reading about this on wiki and such as part of this thread, I think I sort of understand the theological justification for not stunning. Basically, if I understand it correctly, for meat to be kosher, it must be pure. And for it to be "pure", the animal must be healthy, which means that prior to it being killed by the knife, it must not be injured or sick in a manner that would result in its death if the knife is not used.
So the basic idea behind NOT stunning the animal is that stunning it the instant before its throat is cut makes the animal injured prior to its killing by cutting its throat.
Note that halal actually does not have this problem, because the Mulsims I guess decreed that electrical stunning (which the animal will recover from with no adverse effects) is not injurous, hence fulfills this common stipulation of a healthy animal.
This stuff is all so freaking silly. Like God is up there giving a shit whether some cow is stunned or not before you cut its throat. Most religious food rules have some basis in practical fact, and I don't doubt that the basics of kosher and halal preparation do as well. But the idea that the form has so thoroughly trumped the function that fundies are going to insist on something as trivial as this is pretty ridiculous. Of course, that is why they call them Orthodox I guess. Fundies are fundies are fundies are fundies.
Kind of amusing that the Muslim fundies, in this case, are more rational than the Jewish ones though.
I am still convinced that if this became law, some handy Rabbi would find that stunning really is ok, and some butcher would start stunning prior to their magic painless ninja cut, and the people who consume kosher food would shrug and not change a thing.
Quote from: Berkut on June 20, 2011, 09:40:26 AM
This stuff is all so freaking silly.
Yes it is just a bad idea to make cultural folkways permanent religious rituals and doctrines.
I think property rights is a reasonable argument. Animals have no rights, and probably shouldn't. I also believe that we may risk a bigger problem by taking this too far, which is weakening our society by spending unnecessary resources caring for the well being of our food stuffs. If it is more expedient to let cows stand in their own filth and to cut the tails off pigs (which, IIRC, is actually very useful given that it reduces for some reason the amount of fighting between the pigs), then perhaps it is necessary to do so despite calls to empathy.
That said, I am still left thinking that treatment of creatures that quite obviously feel pain and distress, when it is possible, should be as "humane" (for the lack of a better term) as possible/realistic since anything else shames us as a species. I would argue the same for slaves, servants or menial workers. Sure, the system may require that people do thankless jobs for subsistence pay (or none at all), but it is unacceptable to also treat them with no dignity or outright hostility.
We may not need to treat chattel - be it livestock or servants - with respect and dignity, but we should.
For this reason, while I can understand the motivation behind slavery and apartheid, they will always be disgusting phenomenons to me since they will inevitably be misused.
Quote from: Berkut on June 20, 2011, 09:40:26 AM
While reading about this on wiki and such as part of this thread, I think I sort of understand the theological justification for not stunning. Basically, if I understand it correctly, for meat to be kosher, it must be pure. And for it to be "pure", the animal must be healthy, which means that prior to it being killed by the knife, it must not be injured or sick in a manner that would result in its death if the knife is not used.
So the basic idea behind NOT stunning the animal is that stunning it the instant before its throat is cut makes the animal injured prior to its killing by cutting its throat.
Note that halal actually does not have this problem, because the Mulsims I guess decreed that electrical stunning (which the animal will recover from with no adverse effects) is not injurous, hence fulfills this common stipulation of a healthy animal.
This stuff is all so freaking silly. Like God is up there giving a shit whether some cow is stunned or not before you cut its throat. Most religious food rules have some basis in practical fact, and I don't doubt that the basics of kosher and halal preparation do as well. But the idea that the form has so thoroughly trumped the function that fundies are going to insist on something as trivial as this is pretty ridiculous. Of course, that is why they call them Orthodox I guess. Fundies are fundies are fundies are fundies.
Kind of amusing that the Muslim fundies, in this case, are more rational than the Jewish ones though.
I am still convinced that if this became law, some handy Rabbi would find that stunning really is ok, and some butcher would start stunning prior to their magic painless ninja cut, and the people who consume kosher food would shrug and not change a thing.
I find it amusing as well that with religion being about the spirit and all, the letter of whatever you treat as law is deemed more important than the spirit. It's like those fundies treat God as if he were an extremely pedantic lawyer with no common sense or discretion. If I were God, I would be quite annoyed at having my intelligence insulted like that.
Of course, there is a very real purpose to all these silly laws for Orthodox Jews. As an Orthodox rabbi, you want to keep the Jews in your flock segregated from the community at large, to avoid assimilation, and thus mutual alienation and incompatibility of lifestyles is in your interests. If you start interpreting the religious rules with common sense, you pretty much open the floodgates to full blown secularism, since that's where common sense leads to on most issues.
I don't think you're qualified to determine the spirit in which the law was made, since you're not a god.
Quote from: Valmy on June 20, 2011, 09:44:11 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 20, 2011, 09:40:26 AM
This stuff is all so freaking silly.
Yes it is just a bad idea to make cultural folkways permanent religious rituals and doctrines.
Indeed. The weird thing about it is that most of the people who care, don't really - they are mostly told to care by those invested in the current system.
Does anyone really doubt that 99% of the people who observe eating kosher would not bat an eye if their local Rabbi said "Yeah, turns out that using electroshock stunning does not make the meat impure! So we are in fact able to meet the government standards for humane slaughter while still being kosher! Praise Yahweh!"?
Sure, they may very well be that last 1% that pitches a fit and become extra-extra-orthodox-orhtodox. They can prove their faith by becoming vegetarians. :P
Quote from: DGuller on June 20, 2011, 10:44:58 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 20, 2011, 09:40:26 AM
While reading about this on wiki and such as part of this thread, I think I sort of understand the theological justification for not stunning. Basically, if I understand it correctly, for meat to be kosher, it must be pure. And for it to be "pure", the animal must be healthy, which means that prior to it being killed by the knife, it must not be injured or sick in a manner that would result in its death if the knife is not used.
So the basic idea behind NOT stunning the animal is that stunning it the instant before its throat is cut makes the animal injured prior to its killing by cutting its throat.
Note that halal actually does not have this problem, because the Mulsims I guess decreed that electrical stunning (which the animal will recover from with no adverse effects) is not injurous, hence fulfills this common stipulation of a healthy animal.
This stuff is all so freaking silly. Like God is up there giving a shit whether some cow is stunned or not before you cut its throat. Most religious food rules have some basis in practical fact, and I don't doubt that the basics of kosher and halal preparation do as well. But the idea that the form has so thoroughly trumped the function that fundies are going to insist on something as trivial as this is pretty ridiculous. Of course, that is why they call them Orthodox I guess. Fundies are fundies are fundies are fundies.
Kind of amusing that the Muslim fundies, in this case, are more rational than the Jewish ones though.
I am still convinced that if this became law, some handy Rabbi would find that stunning really is ok, and some butcher would start stunning prior to their magic painless ninja cut, and the people who consume kosher food would shrug and not change a thing.
I find it amusing as well that with religion being about the spirit and all, the letter of whatever you treat as law is deemed more important than the spirit. It's like those fundies treat God as if he were an extremely pedantic lawyer with no common sense or discretion. If I were God, I would be quite annoyed at having my intelligence insulted like that.
Of course, there is a very real purpose to all these silly laws for Orthodox Jews. As an Orthodox rabbi, you want to keep the Jews in your flock segregated from the community at large, to avoid assimilation, and thus mutual alienation and incompatibility of lifestyles is in your interests. If you start interpreting the religious rules with common sense, you pretty much open the floodgates to full blown secularism, since that's where common sense leads to on most issues.
barrister? Is that you?
So...sane. So...rational...
:)
Quote from: Berkut on June 20, 2011, 10:48:43 AM
barrister? Is that you?
God, no. :x This is DGuller.
Quote from: DGuller on June 20, 2011, 10:53:14 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 20, 2011, 10:48:43 AM
barrister? Is that you?
God, no. :x This is DGuller.
Oh crap. I am really off today.
I should ahve known it could not be BB, what with him making comments about extremely pedantic lawyers as if it were a bad thing...
Quote from: Berkut on June 20, 2011, 10:47:50 AM
Sure, they may very well be that last 1% that pitches a fit and become extra-extra-orthodox-orhtodox. They can prove their faith by becoming vegetarians. :P
Or they could just move to a country where religious freedom isn't tempered by bigotry.
Quote from: Neil on June 20, 2011, 10:57:09 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 20, 2011, 10:47:50 AM
Sure, they may very well be that last 1% that pitches a fit and become extra-extra-orthodox-orhtodox. They can prove their faith by becoming vegetarians. :P
Or they could just move to a country where religious freedom isn't tempered by bigotry.
No such place, religious freedom is not absolute anywhere.
Quote from: Berkut on June 20, 2011, 11:02:49 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 20, 2011, 10:57:09 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 20, 2011, 10:47:50 AM
Sure, they may very well be that last 1% that pitches a fit and become extra-extra-orthodox-orhtodox. They can prove their faith by becoming vegetarians. :P
Or they could just move to a country where religious freedom isn't tempered by bigotry.
No such place, religious freedom is not absolute anywhere.
I have no problem with Jews keeping kosher within the bounds of ethnic Alberta. Moreover, there's always Israel.
Quote from: Neil on June 20, 2011, 11:06:56 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 20, 2011, 11:02:49 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 20, 2011, 10:57:09 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 20, 2011, 10:47:50 AM
Sure, they may very well be that last 1% that pitches a fit and become extra-extra-orthodox-orhtodox. They can prove their faith by becoming vegetarians. :P
Or they could just move to a country where religious freedom isn't tempered by bigotry.
No such place, religious freedom is not absolute anywhere.
I have no problem with Jews keeping kosher within the bounds of ethnic Alberta. Moreover, there's always Israel.
I don't think anyone in question has any problem with Jews keeping Kosher.
And really, IIRC Israel has all kinds of legal disputes with their Orthodox Jews.
My brother in law moved from Israel to Brooklyn, because Israel wasn't Jewish enough.
Quote from: Berkut on June 20, 2011, 11:02:49 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 20, 2011, 10:57:09 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 20, 2011, 10:47:50 AM
Sure, they may very well be that last 1% that pitches a fit and become extra-extra-orthodox-orhtodox. They can prove their faith by becoming vegetarians. :P
Or they could just move to a country where religious freedom isn't tempered by bigotry.
No such place, religious freedom is not absolute anywhere.
Would you agree with the proposition that anti-Semiticism is more common and more extreme in Europe than in the US?
Quote from: Neil on June 20, 2011, 10:57:09 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 20, 2011, 10:47:50 AM
Sure, they may very well be that last 1% that pitches a fit and become extra-extra-orthodox-orhtodox. They can prove their faith by becoming vegetarians. :P
Or they could just move to a country where religious freedom isn't tempered by bigotry.
What is religious freedom?
If it's illegal for an ethnic Albertan to beat his wife, but is considered proper behavior for a non-ethnic Albertan to beat his wife, will you allow it? What about honor killings? In some middle east culture, it's better to kill a girl dressing with a mini-skirt than allow her to shame the family. Is it still religious freedom?
In this case, we have animal cruelty. A regular slaughterhouse would not be permitted to kill the animals without stunning them, it would be considered animal cruelty. Why do we allow others to do that?
I think everyone should observe the same rules, and that's not bigotry, that's simply sending a message that we welcome everyone, so long as they observe our own rules. It's no more ok to make an animal suffer than to beat your wife because she did not wear a veil.
Quote from: viper37 on June 20, 2011, 12:41:17 PM
In this case, we have animal cruelty. A regular slaughterhouse would not be permitted to kill the animals without stunning them, it would be considered animal cruelty. Why do we allow others to do that?
The issue is whether or not the way "others" slaughter animals causes them enough additional suffering to make interference in a religious matter acceptable.
QuoteI think everyone should observe the same rules, and that's not bigotry, that's simply sending a message that we welcome everyone, so long as they observe our own rules.
I am more than a little bothered by the implications that Jews and Muslims are not part of "us" that is doing the welcoming or not. "Their" rules are part of "our own rules," believe it or not, because "they" are part of "us."
QuoteIt's no more ok to make an animal suffer than to beat your wife because she did not wear a veil.
I don't think it is very realistic to ban all "animal suffering" because it is not possible to raise, transport, or slaughter animals without them suffering to some extant. Black-and-white thinking, alas, will get us nowhere in a debate like this, because the alternative to " mak[ing] an animal suffer" is to have no food animals at all. Is that truly what you are proposing? That " to beat your wife because she did not wear a veil" is no worse than operating a cattle farm, railroad, or slaughterhouse?
Quote from: grumbler on June 20, 2011, 01:18:51 PM
I am more than a little bothered by the implications that Jews and Muslims are not part of "us" that is doing the welcoming or not. "Their" rules are part of "our own rules," believe it or not, because "they" are part of "us."
there are rules against animal cruelty. What's at stake here, is if we make an exception for people with a particular religion, representing a minority in a given country.
Be it the Netherlands, Canada, or the US, there are rules against animal cruelty. It's a given that you can't slaughter the animals without stunning them if you are a regular slaughterhouse.
Why an exception to a minority group?
Quote
I don't think it is very realistic to ban all "animal suffering" because it is not possible to raise, transport, or slaughter animals without them suffering to some extant. Black-and-white thinking, alas, will get us nowhere in a debate like this, because the alternative to " mak[ing] an animal suffer" is to have no food animals at all. Is that truly what you are proposing? That " to beat your wife because she did not wear a veil" is no worse than operating a cattle farm, railroad, or slaughterhouse?
You can have surgery with anesthesia or without it. One way is more painful than the other, wich one?
You could cull the cat population in a city by trapping them and setting them on fire, or trapping them, and inject them with a lethal solution. Wich one is crual, wich one is not?
Quote from: viper37 on June 20, 2011, 02:23:58 PM
there are rules against animal cruelty. What's at stake here, is if we make an exception for people with a particular religion, representing a minority in a given country.
Be it the Netherlands, Canada, or the US, there are rules against animal cruelty. It's a given that you can't slaughter the animals without stunning them if you are a regular slaughterhouse.
Why an exception to a minority group?
The entire issue is "is halal or kosher butchering cruel?" That has not been established. What exactly does an "animal cruelty" law forbid? Generally, causing an animal unnecessary or extreme pain. It hasn't been established yet that halal and/or kosher butchering does this (and, arguably, the world's foremost expert says "no" at least in the case of kosher butchering). If this was as black-and-white as you make it out to be, there wouldn't even be a debate.
QuoteYou can have surgery with anesthesia or without it. One way is more painful than the other, wich one?
We aren't talking about surgery here. Do some research. The choices aren't between a method that causes animals no discomfort and a method that causes discomfort, it is between two methods, both of which cause discomfort and even pain, but for different reasons.
I'd bet that more animals suffer pain from botched standard slaughtering than from ritual slaughtering, as Dr. Garandin points out. Do we ban all slaughtering?
QuoteYou could cull the cat population in a city by trapping them and setting them on fire, or trapping them, and inject them with a lethal solution. Wich one is crual, wich one is not?
An analogy worthy of Marti, but not worthy of response.
Quote from: viper37 on June 20, 2011, 02:23:58 PM
You could cull the cat population in a city by trapping them and setting them on fire, or trapping them, and inject them with a lethal solution. Wich one is crual, wich one is not?
Are you going to eat the cat afterwards?
Are cats kosher as long as you don't stun them first?
Quote from: Berkut on June 20, 2011, 02:54:57 PM
Quote from: viper37 on June 20, 2011, 02:23:58 PM
You could cull the cat population in a city by trapping them and setting them on fire, or trapping them, and inject them with a lethal solution. Wich one is crual, wich one is not?
Are you going to eat the cat afterwards?
Are cats kosher as long as you don't stun them first?
Pretty sure cats aren't kosher, no matter how you slaughter them.
Don't know what viper would do with a dead cat.
Now if it was The Brain, it'd be necrophilia time.
Quote from: grumbler on June 20, 2011, 02:52:55 PM
The entire issue is "is halal or kosher butchering cruel?"
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.
Quote from: dps on June 20, 2011, 03:19:06 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 20, 2011, 02:54:57 PM
Quote from: viper37 on June 20, 2011, 02:23:58 PM
You could cull the cat population in a city by trapping them and setting them on fire, or trapping them, and inject them with a lethal solution. Wich one is crual, wich one is not?
Are you going to eat the cat afterwards?
Are cats kosher as long as you don't stun them first?
Pretty sure cats aren't kosher, no matter how you slaughter them.
Don't know what viper would do with a dead cat.
Now if it was The Brain, it'd be necrophilia time.
I'm not dead yet.
Quote from: The Brain on June 20, 2011, 03:38:19 PM
Quote from: dps on June 20, 2011, 03:19:06 PM
Pretty sure cats aren't kosher, no matter how you slaughter them.
Don't know what viper would do with a dead cat.
Now if it was The Brain, it'd be necrophilia time.
I'm not dead yet.
:lol:
Quote from: The Brain on June 20, 2011, 03:38:19 PM
Quote from: dps on June 20, 2011, 03:19:06 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 20, 2011, 02:54:57 PM
Quote from: viper37 on June 20, 2011, 02:23:58 PM
You could cull the cat population in a city by trapping them and setting them on fire, or trapping them, and inject them with a lethal solution. Wich one is crual, wich one is not?
Are you going to eat the cat afterwards?
Are cats kosher as long as you don't stun them first?
Pretty sure cats aren't kosher, no matter how you slaughter them.
Don't know what viper would do with a dead cat.
Now if it was The Brain, it'd be necrophilia time.
I'm not dead yet.
We can fix that.
I don't think that we need to stun you first.
Quote from: garbon on June 20, 2011, 03:35:09 PM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on June 20, 2011, 04:39:10 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 20, 2011, 03:35:09 PM
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.
Quote from: garbon on June 20, 2011, 04:50:44 PM
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."
Quote from: Weijun on June 20, 2011, 03:38:50 AMAnimals 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... :rolleyes:
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
Animal cruelty laws are the product of the anthropomorphization of animals coupled with our alienation from our food supply.
Quote from: grumbler on June 20, 2011, 04:58:41 PM
"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.
QuoteThe entire issue is "is halal or kosher butchering cruel?"
Quote from: Siege on June 19, 2011, 05:41:05 PM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 19, 2011, 03:06:26 PM
Quote from: HVC on June 17, 2011, 01:01:15 PM
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 :contract:
:lol: 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.
Quote from: LaCroix on June 20, 2011, 05:22:59 PM
Quote from: Weijun on June 20, 2011, 03:38:50 AMAnimals 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... :rolleyes:
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.
I'm a bit surprised this thread died on this note.
The children will eventually scream themselves out of breath and fall asleep.
Quote from: Weijun on June 21, 2011, 08:11:34 PMI 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
Don't be silly, it's the Languish way. :P
Can't CdM slap Weijun for insinuating that one should be able to treat cats however they'd like?
Quote from: LaCroix on June 23, 2011, 08:04:20 AM
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 :)
Quote from: garbon on June 23, 2011, 08:29:16 AM
Can't CdM slap Weijun for insinuating that one should be able to treat cats however they'd like?
Nope.
Quote from: LaCroix on June 23, 2011, 08:04:20 AM
Quote from: Weijun on June 21, 2011, 08:11:34 PMI 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
I don't see how you've refuted his point. Ok, the reason for animal cruelty laws is to change how we treat them. But the motivation for wanting to change that behavior is because the people advocating the change find the behavior wrong, evil, repellant, etc. They have to be basing that on some value system that they hold. I don't know that I'd agree with his apparant belief that all value systems are religions, but it's still an attempt by some to impose their values on others.
Quote from: dps on June 23, 2011, 06:02:28 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on June 23, 2011, 08:04:20 AM
Quote from: Weijun on June 21, 2011, 08:11:34 PMI 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
I don't see how you've refuted his point. Ok, the reason for animal cruelty laws is to change how we treat them. But the motivation for wanting to change that behavior is because the people advocating the change find the behavior wrong, evil, repellant, etc. They have to be basing that on some value system that they hold. I don't know that I'd agree with his apparant belief that all value systems are religions, but it's still an attempt by some to impose their values on others.
Well put. Thanks.
I would not classify all value systems as religions. In the Western sense of the word, a religion has:
- A moral system
- A ritual system
- An explanation of the unknown/unknowable
Environmentalism, Marxism, and even Confucianism(!) have the first two, but are weak on the third (although some environmentalists attribute more to nature than science can prove). If you prefer the term "quasi-religion" to describe these systems, then I am fine with that. Simply calling it a value system, however, really understates how all-encompassing it is. The climate change folks put the Baptists to shame with their message of sin and redemption.
Quote from: Weijun on June 21, 2011, 08:11:34 PM
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.
There is a perfectly sound argument why criminalize animal cruelty, without having to resort to "animals have feelings too". It's the same reason why, for example, we often ban "virtual" child pornography - because cruelty to animals is psychologically damaging to the perps and ultimately can lead them to be cruel to people. It also allows us to identify - and remove/treat - individuals with sadistic tendencies early only before they do real harm.
P.S. I am now convinced you are Dorsey4Heisman.
Quote from: dps on June 23, 2011, 06:02:28 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on June 23, 2011, 08:04:20 AM
Quote from: Weijun on June 21, 2011, 08:11:34 PMI 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
I don't see how you've refuted his point. Ok, the reason for animal cruelty laws is to change how we treat them. But the motivation for wanting to change that behavior is because the people advocating the change find the behavior wrong, evil, repellant, etc. They have to be basing that on some value system that they hold. I don't know that I'd agree with his apparant belief that all value systems are religions, but it's still an attempt by some to impose their values on others.
Implying of course that it's wrong to impose your values on others, spoken like a true libertard.
However, this also means that it was wrong to impose your values on Nazi Germany.
Truth is, the highest calling in life is imposing your values on others on the presumption that your values are superior to everyone elses. You must not think much of your values if you don't believe they are worth disseminating.
Quote from: Neil on June 20, 2011, 05:32:44 PM
Animal cruelty laws are the product of the anthropomorphization of animals coupled with our alienation from our food supply.
This is an oversimplification. It's like saying civil rights movement was a product of Western economies not having to rely on slave labour anymore.
Animal cruelty laws are a product of ever-broadening concept of "us" and the latest step in this moral evolution is the inclusion of animals (or at least certain, higher form of them). I don't think this is as simple as antropomorphization - more like our increasing sense of empathy (which is, incidentally, also a co-efficient of our civilization level). You, of all people, should appreciate the civilizational development.
Quote from: Slargos on June 24, 2011, 01:21:04 AM
Implying of course that it's wrong to impose your values on others, spoken like a true libertard.
However, this also means that it was wrong to impose your values on Nazi Germany.
Truth is, the highest calling in life is imposing your values on others on the presumption that your values are superior to everyone elses. You must not think much of your values if you don't believe they are worth disseminating.
This is true, although this is not a sufficient justification, at least on a rational level (otherwise, it would simply be the matter of strength not reason). His idiocy comes from trying to argue that animal cruelty crimes are "victimless crimes".
Quote from: dps on June 23, 2011, 06:02:28 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on June 23, 2011, 08:04:20 AM
Quote from: Weijun on June 21, 2011, 08:11:34 PMI 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
I don't see how you've refuted his point. Ok, the reason for animal cruelty laws is to change how we treat them. But the motivation for wanting to change that behavior is because the people advocating the change find the behavior wrong, evil, repellant, etc. They have to be basing that on some value system that they hold. I don't know that I'd agree with his apparant belief that all value systems are religions, but it's still an attempt by some to impose their values on others.
That's the point. Religions are not subject to rational scrutiny (or indeed, any scrutiny), whereas other value systems, if based on reason, are. Every single law is based on a value system - anyone who argues otherwise is an idiot. The difference is that in a rational value system (such as the utilitarian system, for example), you have a toolset to resolve conflicts between individual values and to assess whether individual laws are consistent with the system (e.g. religious freedom vs. animal cruelty preventing). In systems based on religion you just have an old bearded guy in a dress.
All rational arguments aside (and I can certainly see the rationale behind treating animals merely as objects) what really shocks me here is the apparent lack of empathy displayed when essentially arguing that it would be acceptable if people tortured their animals for the pleasure of it.
Troll? :huh:
Quote from: Slargos on June 24, 2011, 01:38:04 AM
All rational arguments aside (and I can certainly see the rationale behind treating animals merely as objects) what really shocks me here is the apparent lack of empathy displayed when essentially arguing that it would be acceptable if people tortured their animals for the pleasure of it.
Troll? :huh:
The pro-Jew conditioning is so strong it makes Americans/Canadians side with Muslims AND animal-torturers against the civilized West. Perhaps they really do control the media over there. :P
Quote from: Martinus on June 24, 2011, 01:19:48 AM
Quote from: Weijun on June 21, 2011, 08:11:34 PM
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.
There is a perfectly sound argument why criminalize animal cruelty, without having to resort to "animals have feelings too". It's the same reason why, for example, we often ban "virtual" child pornography - because cruelty to animals is psychologically damaging to the perps and ultimately can lead them to be cruel to people. It also allows us to identify - and remove/treat - individuals with sadistic tendencies early only before they do real harm.
P.S. I am now convinced you are Dorsey4Heisman.
I don't buy it. Someone who tortures small animals may well be on track to being a serial killer. However, that does not imply that one who clubs baby seals for a living fits the profile of Ted Bundy.
Dorsey4Heisman?
Quote from: Slargos on June 24, 2011, 01:38:04 AM
All rational arguments aside (and I can certainly see the rationale behind treating animals merely as objects) what really shocks me here is the apparent lack of empathy displayed when essentially arguing that it would be acceptable if people tortured their animals for the pleasure of it.
Troll? :huh:
Personally, I would not trust someone who would kick a dog (cats are another story, though). I am also horrified when parents pierce the ears of a toddler. However, my personal feelings of revulsion are irrelevant to a discussion of what should be against the law.
Quote from: Weijun on June 24, 2011, 02:03:11 AM
Quote from: Slargos on June 24, 2011, 01:38:04 AM
All rational arguments aside (and I can certainly see the rationale behind treating animals merely as objects) what really shocks me here is the apparent lack of empathy displayed when essentially arguing that it would be acceptable if people tortured their animals for the pleasure of it.
Troll? :huh:
Personally, I would not trust someone who would kick a dog (cats are another story, though). I am also horrified when parents pierce the ears of a toddler. However, my personal feelings of revulsion are irrelevant to a discussion of what should be against the law.
Congratulations, that is perhaps the stupidest utterance on Languish yet.
Quote from: Slargos on June 24, 2011, 02:05:48 AM
Quote from: Weijun on June 24, 2011, 02:03:11 AM
Quote from: Slargos on June 24, 2011, 01:38:04 AM
All rational arguments aside (and I can certainly see the rationale behind treating animals merely as objects) what really shocks me here is the apparent lack of empathy displayed when essentially arguing that it would be acceptable if people tortured their animals for the pleasure of it.
Troll? :huh:
Personally, I would not trust someone who would kick a dog (cats are another story, though). I am also horrified when parents pierce the ears of a toddler. However, my personal feelings of revulsion are irrelevant to a discussion of what should be against the law.
Congratulations, that is perhaps the stupidest utterance on Languish yet.
I am to please.
I don't see how all preferences are religious in nature. And if they are then it doesn't matter that they are.
But I don't think we'll get further down that track.
Quote from: Martinus on June 24, 2011, 01:19:48 AM
Quote from: Weijun on June 21, 2011, 08:11:34 PM
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.
There is a perfectly sound argument why criminalize animal cruelty, without having to resort to "animals have feelings too". It's the same reason why, for example, we often ban "virtual" child pornography - because cruelty to animals is psychologically damaging to the perps and ultimately can lead them to be cruel to people. It also allows us to identify - and remove/treat - individuals with sadistic tendencies early only before they do real harm.
P.S. I am now convinced you are Dorsey4Heisman.
Brilliant logic there, Marty. You just made an argument for why we should make homosexuality illegal.
Quote from: Martinus on June 24, 2011, 01:24:03 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 20, 2011, 05:32:44 PM
Animal cruelty laws are the product of the anthropomorphization of animals coupled with our alienation from our food supply.
This is an oversimplification. It's like saying civil rights movement was a product of Western economies not having to rely on slave labour anymore.
Animal cruelty laws are a product of ever-broadening concept of "us" and the latest step in this moral evolution is the inclusion of animals (or at least certain, higher form of them). I don't think this is as simple as antropomorphization - more like our increasing sense of empathy (which is, incidentally, also a co-efficient of our civilization level). You, of all people, should appreciate the civilizational development.
Perhaps we will include rocks and dirt as the concept of "us" one day.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 24, 2011, 06:40:56 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 24, 2011, 01:24:03 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 20, 2011, 05:32:44 PM
Animal cruelty laws are the product of the anthropomorphization of animals coupled with our alienation from our food supply.
This is an oversimplification. It's like saying civil rights movement was a product of Western economies not having to rely on slave labour anymore.
Animal cruelty laws are a product of ever-broadening concept of "us" and the latest step in this moral evolution is the inclusion of animals (or at least certain, higher form of them). I don't think this is as simple as antropomorphization - more like our increasing sense of empathy (which is, incidentally, also a co-efficient of our civilization level). You, of all people, should appreciate the civilizational development.
Perhaps we will include rocks and dirt as the concept of "us" one day.
Keep laughing, and thinking that just because your molecular bindings are slightly different from those of a petrified Toad, that you are special.
What do they teach you people in school?
Quote from: Martinus on June 24, 2011, 01:24:03 AM
Animal cruelty laws are a product of ever-broadening concept of "us" and the latest step in this moral evolution is the inclusion of animals (or at least certain, higher form of them). I don't think this is as simple as antropomorphization - more like our increasing sense of empathy (which is, incidentally, also a co-efficient of our civilization level). You, of all people, should appreciate the civilizational development.
I could understand how that would be a narrative that you would like to believe in, but I'm not sure I buy it. For one thing, there isn't a serious person on the face of the earth who would consider animals to be a part of 'us'. And then there's the fact that the progress of civilization has made things much worse for animals as a group, and that the spread of 'empathy' is by no means uniform, and that even a country that has the most elaborate animal cruelty laws in the world can engage in the industrialized slaughter of humans.
Also, I'm noting that the explosion of the animal rights movement in North America came about the same time as the kids who watched Bambi in theatres were going to college. The old movement was an elitist philosophical movement going back to the Enlightenment, whereas the new movement was democratized and based on unthinking emotion.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 24, 2011, 06:40:56 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 24, 2011, 01:24:03 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 20, 2011, 05:32:44 PM
Animal cruelty laws are the product of the anthropomorphization of animals coupled with our alienation from our food supply.
This is an oversimplification. It's like saying civil rights movement was a product of Western economies not having to rely on slave labour anymore.
Animal cruelty laws are a product of ever-broadening concept of "us" and the latest step in this moral evolution is the inclusion of animals (or at least certain, higher form of them). I don't think this is as simple as antropomorphization - more like our increasing sense of empathy (which is, incidentally, also a co-efficient of our civilization level). You, of all people, should appreciate the civilizational development.
Perhaps we will include rocks and dirt as the concept of "us" one day.
Give it time. Eventually, we'll get an oxygen-rights movement that is angry that our bodies are polluting the perfection of nature by binding perfect, pure oxygen atoms with carbon.
Quote from: Neil on June 24, 2011, 08:21:47 AM
I could understand how that would be a narrative that you would like to believe in, but I'm not sure I buy it. For one thing, there isn't a serious person on the face of the earth who would consider animals to be a part of 'us'. And then there's the fact that the progress of civilization has made things much worse for animals as a group, and that the spread of 'empathy' is by no means uniform, and that even a country that has the most elaborate animal cruelty laws in the world can engage in the industrialized slaughter of humans.
Also, I'm noting that the explosion of the animal rights movement in North America came about the same time as the kids who watched Bambi in theatres were going to college. The old movement was an elitist philosophical movement going back to the Enlightenment, whereas the new movement was democratized and based on unthinking emotion.
Morality is ever evolving, on that we can agree. The notion of a "natural" moral law is preposterous.
Further more, animals have no rights, even if we buy into the notion that people do.
However, I don't need to see Bambi to know that torturing animals is "wrong" and I doubt it has ever been socially acceptable to any meaningful degree.
I certainly disagree with Martinus that supposed "civilization" has anything to do with morality laws. Scandinavian civilization was certainly less evolved culturally speaking in the 9th century than in the 17th, but women generally enjoyed a greater level of freedom and protection during the "Viking" age than during the rennaisance.
Quote from: Slargos on June 24, 2011, 08:30:51 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 24, 2011, 08:21:47 AM
I could understand how that would be a narrative that you would like to believe in, but I'm not sure I buy it. For one thing, there isn't a serious person on the face of the earth who would consider animals to be a part of 'us'. And then there's the fact that the progress of civilization has made things much worse for animals as a group, and that the spread of 'empathy' is by no means uniform, and that even a country that has the most elaborate animal cruelty laws in the world can engage in the industrialized slaughter of humans.
Also, I'm noting that the explosion of the animal rights movement in North America came about the same time as the kids who watched Bambi in theatres were going to college. The old movement was an elitist philosophical movement going back to the Enlightenment, whereas the new movement was democratized and based on unthinking emotion.
Morality is ever evolving, on that we can agree.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi863.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fab194%2FTang_Weijun%2FWhatyoumeanWE-1.jpg&hash=a37745fa2f2794a24f36f8a38a86ba36b8b433a9)
Quote from: Razgovory on June 24, 2011, 08:48:24 AM
Quote from: Slargos on June 24, 2011, 08:22:35 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 24, 2011, 07:50:31 AM
What do they teach you people in school?
To think.
They should have taught some Chemistry as well.
The list of what they should've taught you is too long, and too spiteful to mention here.
Quote from: Neil on June 24, 2011, 08:21:47 AM
I could understand how that would be a narrative that you would like to believe in, but I'm not sure I buy it. For one thing, there isn't a serious person on the face of the earth who would consider animals to be a part of 'us'. And then there's the fact that the progress of civilization has made things much worse for animals as a group, and that the spread of 'empathy' is by no means uniform, and that even a country that has the most elaborate animal cruelty laws in the world can engage in the industrialized slaughter of humans.
Also, I'm noting that the explosion of the animal rights movement in North America came about the same time as the kids who watched Bambi in theatres were going to college. The old movement was an elitist philosophical movement going back to the Enlightenment, whereas the new movement was democratized and based on unthinking emotion.
I think the emotion thing is the major thing. I used the example of Fish. Few people wish to outlaw hook and line fishing, or catch and release which are needlessly painful to the animal (and yes, fish do feel pain). Why cattle and not fish? Cause fish look more alien then a cow. It's easier to identify with a mammal then it is a fish. It's not logical, or reasonable, or scientific. It's just as irrational as those worshipers of a "bronze age desert fairies". Perhaps more so, since those raving on about bronze age torturers have deluded themselves into thinking they are in fact reasonable. The bronze age torturers typically have no such illusions.
Quote from: Slargos on June 24, 2011, 08:49:43 AM
The list of what they should've taught you is too long, and too spiteful to mention here.
Shame. I'm signing up for some college classes for the fall, advice is welcome.
Quote from: Slargos on June 24, 2011, 08:30:51 AM
However, I don't need to see Bambi to know that torturing animals is "wrong"
No you don't. The only thing you needed to know was what Hermann Goering thought about it.
Don't like agreeing with Libertarians (especially when they go on about Reason like they are the only reasonable people in the world), but Weijun made a fairly good point.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 24, 2011, 08:55:47 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 24, 2011, 08:21:47 AM
I could understand how that would be a narrative that you would like to believe in, but I'm not sure I buy it. For one thing, there isn't a serious person on the face of the earth who would consider animals to be a part of 'us'. And then there's the fact that the progress of civilization has made things much worse for animals as a group, and that the spread of 'empathy' is by no means uniform, and that even a country that has the most elaborate animal cruelty laws in the world can engage in the industrialized slaughter of humans.
Also, I'm noting that the explosion of the animal rights movement in North America came about the same time as the kids who watched Bambi in theatres were going to college. The old movement was an elitist philosophical movement going back to the Enlightenment, whereas the new movement was democratized and based on unthinking emotion.
I think the emotion thing is the major thing. I used the example of Fish. Few people wish to outlaw hook and line fishing, or catch and release which are needlessly painful to the animal (and yes, fish do feel pain). Why cattle and not fish? Cause fish look more alien then a cow. It's easier to identify with a mammal then it is a fish. It's not logical, or reasonable, or scientific. It's just as irrational as those worshipers of a "bronze age desert fairies". Perhaps more so, since those raving on about bronze age torturers have deluded themselves into thinking they are in fact reasonable. The bronze age torturers typically have no such illusions.
Dolphins and whales don't look particularly familiar and yet there are many people who are concerned about them.
People liked Flipper and Free Willie.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 24, 2011, 12:27:20 PM
People liked Flipper and Free Willie.
While that might help with your emotion argument, it doesn't really gel well with the rest your post about familiarity/identification. People liked Finding Nemo.
Quote from: Neil on June 24, 2011, 12:17:08 PM
Quote from: Slargos on June 24, 2011, 08:30:51 AM
However, I don't need to see Bambi to know that torturing animals is "wrong"
No you don't. The only thing you needed to know was what Hermann Goering thought about it.
Göring was a filthy traitor. :mad:
Quote from: Slargos on June 24, 2011, 02:41:15 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 24, 2011, 12:17:08 PM
Quote from: Slargos on June 24, 2011, 08:30:51 AM
However, I don't need to see Bambi to know that torturing animals is "wrong"
No you don't. The only thing you needed to know was what Hermann Goering thought about it.
Göring was a filthy traitor. :mad:
Of course. They were all traitors, they tried to overthrow the government in the early 1920's.
Quote from: Slargos on June 24, 2011, 08:22:35 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 24, 2011, 07:50:31 AM
What do they teach you people in school?
To think.
Obviously, they didn't do a very good job.
QuoteHowever, I don't need to see Bambi to know that torturing animals is "wrong" and I doubt it has ever been socially acceptable to any meaningful degree.
Nor did they do a very good job, apparantly, of providing you with factual knowledge. Had they done so, you would know about things like bear-baiting and cock-fighting, things that were considered perfectly acceptable back in the day.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 24, 2011, 12:27:20 PM
People liked Flipper and Free Willie.
Quote from: garbon
While that might help with your emotion argument, it doesn't really gel well with the rest your post about familiarity/identification. People liked Finding Nemo.
Perhaps more to the point, dolphins and whales are mammals.
Quote from: dps on June 24, 2011, 03:14:46 PM
Perhaps more to the point, dolphins and whales are mammals.
Irrelevant though. Are you honestly trying to say that people have emotional reactions for whales and dolphins but not fish because we all have mammary glands? :yeahright:
Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2011, 03:24:50 PM
Quote from: dps on June 24, 2011, 03:14:46 PM
Perhaps more to the point, dolphins and whales are mammals.
Irrelevant though. Are you honestly trying to say that people have emotional reactions for whales and dolphins but not fish because we all have mammary glands? :yeahright:
Well, when you put it that way, no.
Anyway, a lot of people think that dolphins and whales
are fish.
Quote from: Slargos on June 24, 2011, 02:41:15 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 24, 2011, 12:17:08 PM
Quote from: Slargos on June 24, 2011, 08:30:51 AM
However, I don't need to see Bambi to know that torturing animals is "wrong"
No you don't. The only thing you needed to know was what Hermann Goering thought about it.
Göring was a filthy traitor. :mad:
What would make you say that? He was loyal to his government to the end.
Quote from: Neil on June 24, 2011, 03:57:04 PM
Quote from: Slargos on June 24, 2011, 02:41:15 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 24, 2011, 12:17:08 PM
Quote from: Slargos on June 24, 2011, 08:30:51 AM
However, I don't need to see Bambi to know that torturing animals is "wrong"
No you don't. The only thing you needed to know was what Hermann Goering thought about it.
Göring was a filthy traitor. :mad:
What would make you say that? He was loyal to his government to the end.
His betrayal was spiritual. His excessive indulgence in narcotics and general incompetence cost the Cause greatly.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 24, 2011, 02:42:39 PM
Quote from: Slargos on June 24, 2011, 02:41:15 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 24, 2011, 12:17:08 PM
Quote from: Slargos on June 24, 2011, 08:30:51 AM
However, I don't need to see Bambi to know that torturing animals is "wrong"
No you don't. The only thing you needed to know was what Hermann Goering thought about it.
Göring was a filthy traitor. :mad:
Of course. They were all traitors, they tried to overthrow the government in the early 1920's.
Some were Homos.
Quote from: Slargos on June 24, 2011, 04:04:46 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 24, 2011, 03:57:04 PM
Quote from: Slargos on June 24, 2011, 02:41:15 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 24, 2011, 12:17:08 PM
Quote from: Slargos on June 24, 2011, 08:30:51 AM
However, I don't need to see Bambi to know that torturing animals is "wrong"
No you don't. The only thing you needed to know was what Hermann Goering thought about it.
Göring was a filthy traitor. :mad:
What would make you say that? He was loyal to his government to the end.
His betrayal was spiritual. His excessive indulgence in narcotics and general incompetence cost the Cause greatly.
Not especially. I mean, I suppose he can be faulted for not deposing Hitler.
Göring built a shrine to a Swedish person so he was quite sane.
Quote from: Neil on June 24, 2011, 04:36:36 PM
Quote from: Slargos on June 24, 2011, 04:04:46 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 24, 2011, 03:57:04 PM
Quote from: Slargos on June 24, 2011, 02:41:15 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 24, 2011, 12:17:08 PM
Quote from: Slargos on June 24, 2011, 08:30:51 AM
However, I don't need to see Bambi to know that torturing animals is "wrong"
No you don't. The only thing you needed to know was what Hermann Goering thought about it.
Göring was a filthy traitor. :mad:
What would make you say that? He was loyal to his government to the end.
His betrayal was spiritual. His excessive indulgence in narcotics and general incompetence cost the Cause greatly.
Not especially. I mean, I suppose he can be faulted for not deposing Hitler.
Battle of Britain? Airbridge to Stalingrad? Tremendous successes.
Peter Principle in action.
A good mid-level manager who got promoted far beyond his capability.
Goering was fully aware that the Luftwafte couldn't do everything. He wasn't really that keen on a general war.
Quote from: Slargos on June 24, 2011, 04:44:45 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 24, 2011, 04:36:36 PM
Quote from: Slargos on June 24, 2011, 04:04:46 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 24, 2011, 03:57:04 PM
Quote from: Slargos on June 24, 2011, 02:41:15 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 24, 2011, 12:17:08 PM
Quote from: Slargos on June 24, 2011, 08:30:51 AM
However, I don't need to see Bambi to know that torturing animals is "wrong"
No you don't. The only thing you needed to know was what Hermann Goering thought about it.
Göring was a filthy traitor. :mad:
What would make you say that? He was loyal to his government to the end.
His betrayal was spiritual. His excessive indulgence in narcotics and general incompetence cost the Cause greatly.
Not especially. I mean, I suppose he can be faulted for not deposing Hitler.
Airbridge to Stalingrad?
I would pin Jeschonnek as the ignitor of that debacle. Goring was out of the loop during the intial desicion making.
Quote from: Slargos on June 24, 2011, 04:44:45 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 24, 2011, 04:36:36 PM
Quote from: Slargos on June 24, 2011, 04:04:46 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 24, 2011, 03:57:04 PM
Quote from: Slargos on June 24, 2011, 02:41:15 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 24, 2011, 12:17:08 PM
Quote from: Slargos on June 24, 2011, 08:30:51 AM
However, I don't need to see Bambi to know that torturing animals is "wrong"
No you don't. The only thing you needed to know was what Hermann Goering thought about it.
Göring was a filthy traitor. :mad:
What would make you say that? He was loyal to his government to the end.
His betrayal was spiritual. His excessive indulgence in narcotics and general incompetence cost the Cause greatly.
Not especially. I mean, I suppose he can be faulted for not deposing Hitler.
Battle of Britain? Airbridge to Stalingrad? Tremendous successes.
Peter Principle in action.
A good mid-level manager who got promoted far beyond his capability.
Goering's attacks on the RAF were actually useful in the Battle of Britain, until they were switched to terror-bombing by a directive from Hitler. I suppose you can say that Goering's faith in Udet in the pre-war buildup was a mistake on his part. They were dazzled by how delightfully well the Ju-87 worked, and they ended up with an airforce that was awesome in 1939, but whose infrastructure was too tangled to maintain it into 1941, especially while taking losses. As for the Airbridge, he had been pretty much removed from the planning process by then, and knew full well it wasn't going to work.
Goering was decent at his job, and an excellent politician. His problem was that he didn't have the courage to stand up to Hitler or attempt to supplant him.