TeeJay

Yes, kind of like that I'm certainly not knowledged on this kind of stuff, so still have a lot of reading to do However its not just meat that falls into this category, alcohol falls into this category as do onions and garlic. I'm sure there are probably a few more. It can also be thought of as a 'you are what you eat'. As its not pure, it can have negative effects on the mind.

That's interesting about onions and garlic, as people often eat garlic for health benefits...

@TeeJay: "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'?"

Like Demon, I am not learned in this topic, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's not a secondary element.

The closer you get to the East, there is a feeling that dead bodies are intrinsicly unclean. We in the West had that too (having read Greek plays, you'll remember), but it became muted as medical advances made it obsolete. Ironically, some of the best physicians in the world have been Muslims...but that was well over 1000 years ago.

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...

I rather like chavs, actually.

Dare I ask why?

I'm glad you asked that question TeeJay As you already know, I am a Hindu. Food is classified into 3 categories known as gunas, sattvic, rajas, and tamsic. These are also known as the three 'tendencies'. Heres a quick wiki description:

* Sattva (originally "being, existence, entity") has been translated to mean balance, order, or purity. This typically implies that a person with more of Sattva has a positive or even orderly state of mind. Such a person is psychologically kind, calm, alert and thoughtful. Compare also the bodhisattvas in Buddhism. Indologist Georg Feuerstein translates sattva as "lucidity".

* Rajas (originally "atmosphere, air, firmament") leads one to activity. This type of activity is explained by the term Yogakshem. Yogakshem is composed of two words: Yoga and Kshem. Yoga in the present context is acquiring something that one does not have. Kshem means losing something that one already has. Rajas is the force that creates desires for acquiring new things and fears for losing something that one has. These desires and fears lead one to activity. (Rajas is etymologically unrelated to the word raja.) Feuerstein translates rajas as "dynamism".

* Tamas (originally "darkness", "obscurity") has been translated to mean "too inactive", negative, lethargic, dull, or slow. Usually it is associated with darkness, delusion, or ignorance. A tamas quality also can imply that a person has a self-destructive or entropic state of mind. That person is constantly pursuing destructive activities. Feuerstein translates tamas as "inertia".

Animal flesh, is in the tamas category. Therefore we believe that its consumption has a negative effect on both our body and mind and spirituality if you will. I believe that the actual sin is in the killing of the animal, and not the consumption. However I avoid eating meat even if the animal died in natural circumstances, for the effects it has on us.

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'?

Yes, that may be so. I haven't actually seen a successful halal slaughter so I don't know how the animal reacts. If the animal is indeed rendered unconscious as soon as the throat is slit, then one can say that it will suffer less. However I haven't researched into any slaughter method so I can't say for sure.

In some instances, the animals are electronically stunned prior to the cuts, so they are not even conscious for that...

To me all animal slaughter is wrong.

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?

Its things like how we as humans aren't naturally designed to hunt animals for food consumption. We have to kill them using man-made tools such as guns, knives, spears etc. whereas lions, tigers and other carnivores hunt them with their teeth, claws and even by striking with the paw.

A carnivores intenstines are the appropriate length to digest meat efficiently, without leaving traces of undigested raw meat in their stomachs. Their stomachs are very acidic to kill any bacteria present in the raw meat, humans have to cook meat to eat it to prevent the risk of falling ill or even dying from bacteria. There are other scientific arguments as well, all this just leads me to believe, that we as humans aren't naturally supposed to eat meat, and we can certainly survive without eating any.

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)

I'm with you on the milk I consume a lot of it also, I don't think you will find any Indians who are lactose intolerant

It's good stuff, that's for sure

I think its the whole slaughter with the blood and everything which shocks me. However me being a vegetarian, this shouldn't suprise you Personally I am against the slaughter of animals for consumption, both ethically and religiously. I don't believe that meat is a part of the natural diet for humans. I think science does confirm this in certain aspects too.

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.

As a very small point, that may be true of the deerstalking variety, but those who shoot the winged variety are taught to aim for the head.

I used to be a crack shot (for a girl). I prided myself on always getting the shot right (which you can see once your hound brings them back).

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 have innumerable anecdotes available of my grandfather who went on safaris in Africa. He aimed for the head too, even when being charged. He thought my German grandfather an awful cad, because when they went boar-hunting, it took the latter three shots and a spear to the heart to kill the wee beastie...

(I have to say that even when writing this above, even with my love of guns, etc. that I am very glad such days are over in the West. I'm not entirely immune to the anti-cruelty to animals lobby)

!!! BUT BACK TO LUTEFISK !!!

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)

Here are two videos I found on Youtube, showing a cow (I believe) and a goat killed via the Halal way, however I'm not sure how skilled these people were in the slaughter, because these animals sure do look like they suffered to me and the cow took over a minute to die:

WARNING - VERY GRAPHIC

">

If you separate a brain from the CNS, death is instant. Are you seriously disputing this?

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 what you're trying to achieve with the jugular stuff.

It's not a case of 'trying to achieve', but what is the case.

And yes, I know there are many cases of people doing it wrong, much like the documented cases of Halal butchers using blunt knives (search the BBC news site) and the like.

I clearly said IF it is done properly, did I not.

Don't argue perfect Halal against incompetent regular butchery as I'm not arguing perfect regular butchery against incompetent halal.

I wasn't.

Refused? I just ignored it as it was silly. I never stated that we should be buying hunted food. All I said is that it's the most humane method of killing.

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.

Is Halal more cruel than regular slaughter?

According to those articles, no. As yet, they have not been dissproved, so their validity stands.

The governments of the western world seem to think so.

Then they ought to do more research and get their facts straight...

Halal gets special dispensation in spite of its cruelty.

What cruelty? It has been proven to be more humane than bolt slaughter...

Pretty much, yes. Something this important, if it really had been studied, would be publicly available.

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.

I'll ask one more time, just in case you missed it the other two times: If it weren't religiously prescribed, would anyone insist on Halal-style killing?

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.

Hey TJ! What's up, mate? That looks nice, but I don't think it will work on a 745li! Maybe a 645ci or an M series! Good idea though!

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

That's not how it works.

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 never had you down as a fundamentalist.

The term "fundamentalist" has since been generalized to mean strong adherence to any set of beliefs in the face of criticism or unpopularity, but has by and large retained religious connotations

Islamic fundamentalists, or at least "reformist" fundamentalists, believe Islam is based on the Qur'an, Hadith and Sunnah and "criticises the tradition, the commentaries, popular religious practices (maraboutism, the cult of saints), deviations, and superstitions. It aims to return to the founding texts." Examples of this tendency are the 18th century Shah Waliullah in India and Abd al-Wahhab in the Arabian Peninsula. [10] This view is commonly associated with Salafism today.

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

Prove?

Yes. Prove. Preferebly by reference to scientific paper.

I can't believe you're arguing against this as it's established biology.

I'm not arguing against it. I am simply asking you to prove your claim that meat which is hunted, suffers the least.

The fact that Halal meat is an exemption from the Humane Slaughter Act should concern you. The fact that the Farm Animal Welfare Council has advised the UK government (that's their job - they are government advisors) that Halal should be banned due to the severe suffering caused.

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.

If I were to open a slaughterhouse and use Halal methods without the religion, I'd be closed down and put in prison.

Am I wrong?

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.

It's not. There is no record on the Hannover University website or on the google scholarly research website of either a Schultz or a Hazim ever having published a paper on anything. You don't find that strange? Not even a little?

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.

Nice argument you two...enjoyed reading it.

But what about those bastard Chinese eating dogs? Add to that the situation in Tibet......how can the Olympic Committee seriuosly believe that the civilised world is going to tollerate the games being held there?

Silly question........the answer being money! Oh, and apathy!

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...

Uh-oh, researcher's alarm bells are going off. Apart from consistently misspelling the name of the University, the only pages that this shows up are religious pages. I can't take this at face value.

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.

Please show me the paper.

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.

Yeah, and that's a strawman. No-one here is saying you should strangle animals instead. Both methods are barbaric yet one is slightly less so.

Strawman my ass, the fact of the matter, is that it is one of the most humane methods of slaughter available. Bt how much, was not the issue.

Organic happy meat

In fact, the most humane (or adrenaline-free) method is surprisingly game hunting. Venison from wild deer shot through the skull at 200M by a skilled hunter will get you the cleanest meat you'll ever taste.

And how many mainstream supermarkets are prepared to pay for hunters to bring in the meat?

Er, you mention the reason to kill Halal style is precisely because it's in the Qu'ran. That's "God says so" in anyone's book.

Where did I say that? Dani mentioned halal, I simply clarified that it is one of the most humane slaughter methods available. I know you like arguing for the sake of it, and I've got better things to do with my time than indulge you

[Edit to add]

I forgot to mention, there's nothing stopping animals from being electronically stunned before being killed in the halal manner.

Nice going. Comparing old barbaric ways of killing with other old barbaric ways and saying one isn't as bad as the others.

Bleeding an animal to death is not humane. Live with it.

Which is the more humane method of execution? Strangulation, or severing the jugular? I'm not out to win points, I'm just stating a fact. It is more humane than strangling an animal to death. If the animal is unconscious (which it should be) then it isn't going to suffer. Plenty of the western methods of animal slaughter, which are supposed to be humane, can just as equally only leave the animal dazed or suffering, so the killing blow itself is still traumatic. At the end of the day, the point I was illustrating, is that what one society views as acceptable, another may not, but, the idea of 'tollerance', does not mean forcing that other society to start following the practices of the other.

Oh, and don't use "God says it's ok" as an excuse. The crusades were based on that argument and that's another path you don't want to go down.

I wasn't even going to mention it. You decided, for whatever reason, to 'bring that one to the table'. Does Godwins only apply to references to Nazism?

Arguing for the sake of arguing isn't going to win you brownie points either

I see what you mean about the stain on the dial and the scratched hands. Those are pretty shocking. The movement looks great though, and if the case/cgs have come up nicely, you could indeed have the beginings of a good project watch I'm sure a skilled modder will be able to breathe life back into it

PS Two cg screws missing in the post? I suspect someone is telling you fibs

I just wanted to add, as a woman, i've always had clothes fitting problems.

I'm 5' 10", 153 lbs. and have long arms and a low waist.

I often have to buy "tall womens" clothing, of which there is a very paltry selection in terms of color and conservative design.

The winter in Chicago was very long, cold, and snowy and I spent many hours looking for a new coat.

I gave up and wore my 4 year old shlumpy down coat, I am so sick of it, I will ceremonially burn it.

My dream is to have a bespoke cashmere coat made just for me. Unfortunately, I take public transit to work every day and that coat would be just too nice.

I'm shocked. Being short (5'6"/167cm) I always thought taller women had so much more selection, as couture and its copy-slaves prefer your type.

And in Chicago too! With Marshall Fields/Macy's, in your backyard!

I think you need to move to Paris or New York, Rima. You'll NEVER struggle to find a coat which will suit, there.

I'd say the issue is one of proportions rather than height. My wife is about 5'6", but, her legs are about 4" too short (proportionately) to her body. She is also 'long in the body', so has a real issue getting tops which are long enough, without being oversized in the bust/arms. Of couse, if her legs were 4" longer, she'd be 5'10", and probably wouldn't look as long in the body, although she'd still have the issue of finding tops that fit Given that I'm about 6'2", I have a feeling our children will be on the tall side

On the topic of bespoke garments....

I've never had a suit tailored, but, did have a leather jacket custom made for me

It's a replica of this jacket:

http://getactive.peta.org/campaign/pink_wo...eo?c=stspinkvid

Yeah i now its sheeps in Aussie country clip, but look at the way they slaughter the sheeps when they arrive in a muslim country and get subject to the great kindness of halal slaughter..I em happy to say both halal and kosher is illegal in my country..

blabla peta this and that i now, i dislike them also.

As said before i em no vegan i em just not a savage or stoneage man.

Cheers

And you think PETA would show something showing halal slaughter in a positive light? Try a little less biassed sources of information next time... I'm not making comments about halal slaughter just because I'm a Muslim, I'm simply stating the facts about it. If done properly, unconsciousness is near instantaneous, with death following closely (while the animal is unconscious) This applies to Humans as well as animals. There was a story in the news not so long ago, about a man who was died as a result of a fight (which he actually provoked) because a blow to his neck tore his jugular, and he bled to death internally. I suspect, that as the bleeding was only internal, the process took longer, but, had it been an 'open wound', he would have been dead even quicker.

What is savage about killing an animal in as humane manner as possible? How about strangling something to death, or snapping the neck of an animal in your hands? Those are not humane methods of slaughter, and would traumatise the animal (especially if it is not killed on the first attempt) Cutting the jugular vein, however, is a near foolproof method of slaughter (providing the blade is sharp, and the person knows what they are doing.

Victoria's post also covers much that I would agree with.

Why all the watches you show here are from watch-ebay ???

There are no examples from other dealers around ???

PS How come no one says this if people show a load of watches from other dealers?

Yep, pretty much, TeeJay. My HBB is big enough and it's actually quite nice, I'm just not convinced it's "me".

Other than that, it's all PAMs....

Indeed, HBB's are certainly a nice size for a watch. Personally, I'm not too keen on them, but, size-wise, they're pretty good