TeeJay

I'm sure certain diseases will continue to thin the numbers

Oh I agree, there is an increase in scale, but, equally, there is an increase in people's awareness of world affairs, which is why people can think there seems to be more 'bad stuff' going on in the world than there used to be (and yes, statistically speaking, perhaps there is ) but, a lot of that has always gone on, and people just didn't hear about it, as there wasn't global communications as there are today.

Like Anton, I mostly collect to a 'theme'. That theme is Movie Memorabelia I have a few watches which aren't from a specific movie or show, but not many... Since getting into PAMs, I haven't worn any of my 'Bond watches' for more than a few minutes As the 127 was worn by Orlando Bloom in Elizabethtown, technically, my 127 falls into that catagory (or would if it had the proper OEM Bordeaux strap...) however, I wear it because, I've found it the best watch for my needs, rather than just because it was in a movie

About 10 years ago, I had a pair of Raybans (the same as Snipes wore on the DVD Cover of Blade (Not the ones he wore in the movie)) and they fell apart within 6 months. And I do mean fell apart. Just about every screw and joint opened. They were utter garbage. When X-Men came out, I bought a pair of Juliets. Barring a few lens scratches, and some tightening required, they are in as good condition as the day I bought them.

In all fairness, Humanity has always been pretty bloodthirsty and warlike. To put things in perspective, it's only with the development of mass media and global communications, that we are now aware of what is going on around the globe. All that's happened, is that we now hear about what's going on else where, when, in times past, messages took days, weeks, months, sometimes, even years to be delivered, so people only tended to know about what was going on 'on their own doorsteps'. The only thing that's changed, is people's 'global awareness', not the events themselves

You've been out of the UK waaaaaaaay too long Just watch an episode of Jeremy Kyle... The problem with chavs is that they don't want anything better out of life. Making a nuisance of themselves, shoplifting and harrassing people in the street, is what these human parasites live for. They're now graduating into murder. Not more than a week ago, a 15 year old chav was sent down for kicking a 20 year old woman to death. Because she "was a goff". About a year ago, a pack of chavs murdered a father playing cricket with his son, by stoning him to death (while he had a heart attack, if I recall) Oh no, chavs don't want anything better out of life. This is as good as it gets for them... Time to start sending out 'BladeRunners' to take care of the problem

No, it's not. There is evidence proving that it is more humane than bolt killing. You saying it is cruel, is not going to make it so, just because you say so. Of course, if you would care to provide evidence which disproves the articles linked then feel free. And by that I do mean evidence. Scientifically conducted evidence. Not just a few clips which offend the squeamish. There are probably a whole lot of people who would become vegetarians if they actually knew how animals were slaughtered (by whatever method) simply because they don't like connecting the steak on their plate, with the happy cow saying "Eat more chicken..."

That's interesting about onions and garlic, as people often eat garlic for health benefits... The thing that made me think about the 'taking in death', was that, in many vampire mythologies, vampires must not drink blood from corpses, and I wondered if this might have been a similar principle about not 'taking death in'... Interesting how most (if not all) cultures had vampire legends even before they were in contact with each other...

Dare I ask why?

That's very interesting. Would I be correct in thinking, that at the core, the concept is that by eating something dead, one is 'taking death into the body'?

In some instances, the animals are electronically stunned prior to the cuts, so they are not even conscious for that... That's fair enough, afterall, we're all entitled to our own beliefs and opinions... Out of curiousity, how would you feel about eating meat that had not been slaughtered, but had already expired by natural means? Not trying to dig or anything, just idle curiousity if it is the meat, or the slaughter (or both) which is objectionable?

Ahh, but, how much of that is 'modern man', compared to, say, 10'000 BC? (Shows my favorite animal in that movie ) Although you're quite right, that people can live without meat in their diet, it's interesting that so many cultures around the world do involve eating meat (or fish, whichever is locally available) It's good stuff, that's for sure

Absolutely, afterall, people are often shocked by things which are not a part of their lifestyle. I have to admit, I don't see animals slaughtered every day ( ) but, I have seen it done, and, I've seen an example of a pig being slaughtered, which makes the demise of that cow look positively peacefull... To be honest, with the cow, it would appear that the initial 'executioner' botched the job and didn't cut deep enough, as, as soon as the last cut was made, then it went totally still. That said, I'd still put much of the thrashing and noise down to autonomics. An animal (or person) can't lose that much blood that quickly and remain conscious. But, that just reinforces the point previously made, that, if it is properly done (which in a slaughter house it certainly should be) there should be no suffering for the animal.

Women are actually better shots than men. Something to do with how the female brain analyses and assesses situations. I know it's a line from a Bond movie, but, I believe it to have been accurate, that all the best KGB snipers were women... I'm not one to stand for cruelty to animals either. The issue here though, as you pointed out before, is that the halal method is not cruel, it just appears to be. (people get freaked out at the sight of blood)

I never disputed that at all. I merely pointed out, that, as Jon Fort mentioned, the majority of hunters do not make headshots, but shoot for the lungs. This is someone who hunts pointing out that it is not the 'clean, quick kill' you are claiming it to be. Where is scientific evidence that 'hunted meat' suffers less trauma than other methods of despatch? All you have brought to the table, is an opinion, and absolutely zero back up. You might disbelieve the articles I linked, but at least I've actually found something which proved the point I was making. Again, you disbelieving the articles, does not disprove them. It's not a case of 'trying to achieve', but what is the case. I clearly said IF it is done properly, did I not. I wasn't.

And once more, you say it with absolutely zero evidence to support that. There was even comment by someone who does hunt, that said that such hunting is not the 'quick, clean kill' you are trying to pass it off as. As I said before: How calm will an animal be when it has a hole where its lungs used to be? You refuse to accept the articles I linked to because of their religious locations. That is fine. That is your right. But. Do not make the mistake of thinking that because you do not believe somethng, that it is unproven. As before, just because the original paper is not readily coming to light online, that does not mean that it does not exist. According to those articles, no. As yet, they have not been dissproved, so their validity stands. Then they ought to do more research and get their facts straight... What cruelty? It has been proven to be more humane than bolt slaughter... As before, there could be any number of reasons why the paper has not been published to the web. None of those hypothetical reasons dissprove the articles. And, once more, that is irrelevent to the issue of how humane it is compared to other methods. At the end of the day, many western meat companies will go with the quickest and cheapest method of execution, not, the most humane.

All's well here, thanks I guess it would need the proper model BMW to work properly Thinking about it, a custom paintjob could prove troublesome if it did come to selling the car, as it would require the prospective buyer to like it too That's why I figured it best to do it and advertize it on a custom car forum

Buy it, get it sprayed up to look like this: And then advertize it on a forum for modified car enthusiasts. I don't think you'd have a problem getting your money back, plus a nice increase

Someone Chelsea-Smiled him pretty good at some point

Oh but that is how it works. You stated that hunted meat suffers less, with absolutely zero back up for that. Even without the articles I found, I knew that severing the juglar renders something unconscious almost instantaneously, so death comes whilst unconscious. All the bleeding and twitching, the beast knows none of that. As Victoria pointed out before, it only looks inhumane because of all the blood. Now, I found an article which backed that up. You, with your athiest refusal of religion, refused to believe it. As I said before, there could be any number of reasons why the original findings are not available online. Is every scientific experiment ever carried out available for online perusal? Is every work of fiction freely available online? 'No' would be the answer to both points. Just because the original paper is not available, that does not mean it does not exist. The validity of the article stands, untill it is disproven, which you have done absolutely nothing to do. Infact, Jon Fort pointed out that hunters rarely go for 'head shots', and that lung shots, whilst effective, are not fast. How much distress is an animal going to be in with a hole in it's chest unable to breathe? That rather sufficiently disproves your statement that hunted meat suffers less. You have yet to disprove the articles which claim to be reporting scientific findings. Also, you have refused to answer my question, about if supermarkets are prepared to pay hunters for bringing in meat. I am a Qur'an-Only Muslim. I have said this many times. I do not follow the hadiths of the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, I study the fundementals of the religion, the Qur'an. I have said this many times. By definition, that would not make me, a "reformist" fundementalist. Also, and this is a big Also. Fundementalism is totally different to extremism... Do try not to confuse them Accusing me of being a fundementalist, does nothing to disprove the articles I linked to

Yes. Prove. Preferebly by reference to scientific paper. I'm not arguing against it. I am simply asking you to prove your claim that meat which is hunted, suffers the least. Where is proof of this 'severe suffering'? If an animal is unconscious, it is not experiencing pain. It is not suffering. As mentioned previously, electronically stunning the animal prior to the slaughter is permitted. This reduces the possibility of suffering even further. You are diverting the issue. Legality is not the issue of debate here. The issue, is one of animal suffering. Causing an animal to suffer, is specifically forbidden in the Qur'an. The method of halal slaughter, is the most humane method. Also, regardless of your personal schepticism as to the source of the information, it is also proven to be more humane than use of a bolt. Unless, of course, you wish to recreate the experiments to disprove that. Then I suggest you contact the people who posted the articles I linked to, and ask that they prove their information. I don't find it cause to disbelieve the information presented, and there may be any number of reasons why the information has not been 'officially published' to the net.

I've always rather liked the concept of the Prime Directive (albeit in a slightly modified form for such Earth-bound applications)... As I've mentioned before, tolerance means accepting that other cultures differ, regardless of personal approval or condemnation, and allowing those differences, rather than insisting that X culture has to modify to conform to the morals of Y culture. Also, as mentioned before, if people disapprove of Chinese political policy or social values, maybe they should boycot all Chinese produce...

Like you expected everyone else to take your claim that hunted meat suffered the least? You expect everyone to prove the experiment itself? Prove your claim that hunted meat suffers less. Hit up Google, I'm sure it'll be there somewhere.

Just found this article mentioned online: Scientific proof that properly carried out halal slaughter is less traumatic to the animal, thus more humane. Same info, different source A simple search for "Professor Schultz and his colleague Dr. Hazim of the Hanover University" will confirm these articles. Background information. Halal/Haram Peace be upon you.