China and animals

[Dani]

When an animal kills a human in self-defence, or due to its beastly nature (which is rare) some humans want pay-back. They then go and track down the animal and kill it. When a sting-ray killed Steve Irwin in either self-defence or due to being frightened, some people got enraged and began to hunt down and kill innocent sting-rays. So when an animal attacks humans, we justify ourselves to go out and kill them.

The animals we kill for food, they don't have the means to attack us, they can't defend themselves. They pretty much have no choice but to accept their fate, that their days are numbered and their throat will soon be slit. You can observe that humans will only kill those animals for food which can't defend themselves, in other words they prey on the weak and defenceless.

I would like to see how things turn around, if dinosaurs were brought back to the earth. We would now be lower in the food chain, they will be hunting and killing us for food. We will naturally try to defend ourselves to survive as a species, and because we want to live. We won't just accept that the dinosaurs outmatch us in brute strength and killing power, and so we're pretty much they're food.

I point out that we humans can survive just fine without killing any animals for food. We are actually wasting more land, water, and crops in rearing animals for food. These extra crops can be used to feed the poor and help lessen poverty, the water can also be used in this same way. However due to the selfishness of many humans, sadly many animals are being killed to satisfy their bellies, though fully knowing that its not a requirement.

Best respond in this tread by far..

[Emmzy]

And if for whatever reason, one day we as humans are no longer at the top of the food chain, and are instead hunted down AS food by other animals, I take it that you will be OK to accept that?

The intelligent answer to this is that should this happen humanity would have no choice but to accept it!

[DemonSlayer]

I have joined this quite late and therefore haven't read alot of the posts. However, humans have killed animals for food since day one. Its the food chain. Cows eat grass, we eat the cow. The gazelle grazes, the lion hunts gazelle.

Humans in certain parts of the world (namely Europe) have always eaten meat from day one because they didn't know how to grow their own food. The British didn't know a lot of basic stuff until the Romans came along and had to teach them these things.

Of course the killing of animals may not be done in the most humane way, but it is no more barbaric than a lion tearing the throat of the gazelle.

How else is a lion supposed to get its food, it can't sweet talk a gazelle to death, it can't wish it to death, its a natural hunter, and has been equipped with a body suited to hunt, (sharp claws, sharp teeth, powerful muscles).

It is true that the human doesn't 'need' meat, however humans have always eaten meat. Just because we are in a better position to know the consequences of our actions for me doesn't justify an argument that says we should stop eating animals for food.

And if for whatever reason, one day we as humans are no longer at the top of the food chain, and are instead hunted down AS food by other animals, I take it that you will be OK to accept that?

[Dani]

Nothing I see in that video comes close to what chickens go through.

(WARNING: if you are sensitive but love fried chicken, do not watch this video)

">

[b16a2]

Humans in certain parts of the world (namely Europe) have always eaten meat from day one because they didn't know how to grow their own food. The British didn't know a lot of basic stuff until the Romans came along and had to teach them these things.

I fear that what I said was taken too literally. I was merely pointing out tht for a very long time, meat has been a main constituent of our diet, , and that it will continue to be.

How else is a lion supposed to get its food, it can't sweet talk a gazelle to death, it can't wish it to death, its a natural hunter, and has been equipped with a body suited to hunt, (sharp claws, sharp teeth, powerful muscles).

Again, wasn't meant to be taken so literally, it was just to demonstrate that in life you will always have one entity above another, one has to be sacrificed for the other. The rich and poor, the prey and the predator, Manchester United and Liverpool (I hate it when Liverpool lose haha)

And if for whatever reason, one day we as humans are no longer at the top of the food chain, and are instead hunted down AS food by other animals, I take it that you will be OK to accept that?

Thankfully I will never be in a position to have to accept that. If I were to be subject to that situation, then I would have no choice, it all comes down to natural selection at the end of the day. Humans for the foreseeable future will always be at the top, I'm not quite sure that it is a relevant argument whether I would put up wth per se, because I will never have to. Animals have to put up with it, they are not intelligent enough to be at the top of the food chain. However I don't think that animals sit there in their last seconds pondering on 'what if's', because there power of reasoning is not strong enough, they live, they die.

It might be interesting to point out that I am totally against the inhumane treatment of animals, and to a large extent agree with your points, however I know full well that I can do nothing about it, and I wouldn't want to, I enjoy meat as part of my diet.

[DemonSlayer]

I fear that what I said was taken too literally. I was merely pointing out tht for a very long time, meat has been a main constituent of our diet, , and that it will continue to be.

I do agree, that in the early and barbaric days of some of the human population on this planet, they had to eat animals to survive, the whole 'hunter gatherer' thing. They didn't know how to grow their own food, but were still somehow taking in important and vital vitamins and minerals. What I am saying is, those days are over. We no longer need to hunt animals to survive, we don't depend on them as food for us to survive. Leave the animals alone and let them live their own lives, keep some as pets if you wish, but for God's sake don't butcher them to satisfy your own taste buds.

Again, wasn't meant to be taken so literally, it was just to demonstrate that in life you will always have one entity above another, one has to be sacrificed for the other. The rich and poor, the prey and the predator, Manchester United and Liverpool (I hate it when Liverpool lose haha)

Awesome match that was thanks for reminding me On a more serious note, I am not saying that we shouldn't defend ourselves. We should, its a part of every animals natural instinct to survive. We can grow our own food for our sustenance, a lion cannot, it doesn't have the intelligence. A lot of us talk that we have the intelligence to do this and do that, yet are very barbaric at the same time.

Thankfully I will never be in a position to have to accept that. If I were to be subject to that situation, then I would have no choice, it all comes down to natural selection at the end of the day. Humans for the foreseeable future will always be at the top, I'm not quite sure that it is a relevant argument whether I would put up wth per se, because I will never have to. Animals have to put up with it, they are not intelligent enough to be at the top of the food chain. However I don't think that animals sit there in their last seconds pondering on 'what if's', because there power of reasoning is not strong enough, they live, they die.

It might be interesting to point out that I am totally against the inhumane treatment of animals, and to a large extent agree with your points, however I know full well that I can do nothing about it, and I wouldn't want to, I enjoy meat as part of my diet.

I also hope it doesn't happen. I appreciate your opposition to the inhumane treatment of animals. But the sad fact is, most animals slaughtered today ARE treated inhumanely, and nothing is being done about it. Most of us just turn a blind eye.

[doc savage]

You two have really got to be kidding me with this logic!

OK so we only eat animals that can't fight back--so what? Is this supposed to be some kind of proof that man is evil? What animal in nature would go after it's own predators as food if they can eat something that won't try to kill them?

All you have to do is turn on the Discovery Channel if you want to see some cruel forms of slaughter, this point has been made time and time again. An animal is not giving the slightest thought to the suffering of it's dinner.

So the innocent stingrays are being hunted down by Steve Irwin's fans, people are murdering animals for revenge, and OMG we will see how it feels if the dinosaurs come back and eat us. Wow, if that's a good point to you I want some of your groovy drugs.

I'm trying to point out to you that a scientist, whose entire professional career is based on her extreme empathy for animals, observes impartially that an animal with it's throat slit cleanly, while standing, appears not to notice the cut or feel any pain. Here's some quotes for you:

During my career I have visited over 30 kosher beef plants in the U.S., Canada and other countries. I have also worked on designing restraint equipment to replace shackling and hoisting in kosher slaughter plants. Kosher slaughter without stunning can be done with an acceptable level of welfare when it is done correctly (Grandin, 1994). When shehita is performed correctly with the long knife, the cattle appear not to feel it.

I have operated the hydraulic controls on restraining boxes that hold cattle in a standing upright position. To determine if the animal felt the shehita cut, I experimented by using less and less pressure to hold the animal's head in the head holder. I put the head holder on so loosely that the animal could have easily pulled it's head out. When the shochet performed the cut, the animal made no attempt to move it's head. The special long knife used in kosher slaughter is very important. When slaughter without prior sunning is performed with a shorter knife, cattle will violently struggle and definitely feel pain. This is due to the point of the knife digging into the incision. To prevent the animal from reacting to the cut, the blade must be long enough so that the end of the knife remains outside the incision. When I operated the restraining box I was amazed that the cattle did not react to the shehita cut.

Most cattle will become unconscious and insensible within 5 to 10 seconds after a biologically effective cut. However, sensibility can last for over a minute in a small percentage of cattle. When I operated the restraining box, I completely released the headholder and all restraints on many animals so that I could observe their reactions after the cut. Most cattle just looked around before they collapsed. They appeared to not be aware that their throats had been cut. To maintain good animal welfare standards, the animal should be held in the restraining box until it collapses.

So you saw some videos and you feel sorry for the animals, fine, but I am pointing out that that is not the correct method. Stop trying to depict a religious mandate, which by the way was originally intended to decrease suffering, with some kind of barbaric practice.

Sure, if I had a choice I would rather be shot in the head than have my throat slit, but no one cares if my brain matter contaminates my bloodstream and spreads mad cow disease. Further, it is possible for a cow to appear stunned and still feel pain, while it is NOT possible for it to bleed out and remain conscious.

The fact is, there are a crapload of Muslims and Jews and they eat a crapload of meat. You, and whatever pansy organization you support, are NEVER going to get them to start shooting cows in the head. It MIGHT be possible to spread standards of animal welfare that reduce suffering to the bare minimum, but all the crying about the "evil religious wackos torturing the noble beasts" is accomplishing nothing.

So far no one has been sticking up for the plants, my spirit ears can hear their death-screams in the death-fields, crying out for justice! I sometimes tell my steak that it got what it deserved for tearing up all that helpless grass and eating it alive.

If you really have a heart you would not eat any harvested plant, only those fruits and nuts the majestic trees willingly offer you by dropping them to Mother Earth.

[b16a2]

You are correct, and I am very guilty of NIMBYISM in relation to this. In the perfect world, I would agree 100% with what you are saying. Humans do not need meat to survive, so why continue to kill animals. If you keep hitting your head against the wall it hurts, so you stop, easy.

However, I don't think that just because we know that we can survive without meat should prevent us from eating it. Our 'intellgience' has given us options, we can import organic foods from around the world now, so yes vegetarian diets are easily possible. However, if we all resorted to eating green, what affect would this have on the wrold's ecosystem. I am no scientist but I believe that it would cause a severe imbalance in the worlds ecosystem - this is very much a speculation based on nothing more than an educated guess.

At the moment humans are at the top of the food chain. Killing animals is what we do, and it was we will contine to do, no amount of will power will stop this. I don't think killing animals is anymore inhumane than politicians leading people into thinking we can stop global warming.....ooops lets not go there

[ryyannon]

Best respond in this tread by far..

Oh Yeah?

[DemonSlayer]

You two have really got to be kidding me with this logic!

OK so we only eat animals that can't fight back--so what? Is this supposed to be some kind of proof that man is evil? What animal in nature would go after it's own predators as food if they can eat something that won't try to kill them?

No, it means that man are cowards. The pre-historic men from the caves and hills had a lot more balls than the so-called intelligent men of today - when it comes to killing animals for food.. Killing animals for food is just a minor of many things which have made some man evil, if you want I can go into more detail..

So the innocent stingrays are being hunted down by Steve Irwin's fans, people are murdering animals for revenge, and OMG we will see how it feels if the dinosaurs come back and eat us. Wow, if that's a good point to you I want some of your groovy drugs.

So do you think it was justified for some of Steve Irwin's fans to go around killing stingrays? Just think for a moment, how STUPID that was.

Sure, if I had a choice I would rather be shot in the head than have my throat slit, but no one cares if my brain matter contaminates my bloodstream and spreads mad cow disease. Further, it is possible for a cow to appear stunned and still feel pain, while it is NOT possible for it to bleed out and remain conscious.

I would assume many would. Most nations with capital punishment, don't use throat-slitting as a method to kill the convicted. If it is so humane and supposed to be painless, why isn't it used as a method?

The fact is, there are a crapload of Muslims and Jews and they eat a crapload of meat. You, and whatever pansy organization you support, are NEVER going to get them to start shooting cows in the head. It MIGHT be possible to spread standards of animal welfare that reduce suffering to the bare minimum, but all the crying about the "evil religious wackos torturing the noble beasts" is accomplishing nothing.

I'm not a supporter of any 'panzy' organisation, I'm against any form of inhumane treatment of animals AND humans.

So far no one has been sticking up for the plants, my spirit ears can hear their death-screams in the death-fields, crying out for justice! I sometimes tell my steak that it got what it deserved for tearing up all that helpless grass and eating it alive.

If you really have a heart you would not eat any harvested plant, only those fruits and nuts the majestic trees willingly offer you by dropping them to Mother Earth.

Plants are not on the same life plane as animals, they don't have the same intelligence as some animals, they don't have the same senses, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, they are essential for our survival. We can grow them ourselves, but we can't grow animals by planting them in soil, they have to go through a birth process from developing in the womb, as we do.

[TeeJay]

The animals we kill for food, they don't have the means to attack us, they can't defend themselves. They pretty much have no choice but to accept their fate, that their days are numbered and their throat will soon be slit. You can observe that humans will only kill those animals for food which can't defend themselves, in other words they prey on the weak and defenceless.

I recall hearing that aligator is one of the most nutritious meats available. I don't think anyone would think of them as being defenseless (although your point is well taken )

[TeeJay]

but for God's sake don't butcher them to satisfy your own taste buds.

Just a quick note, as God's name has been mentioned

There is nothing in Islamic teaching which says that a person must eat meat. It is quite possible (and religiously permitted) for a Muslim to be a vegetarian. Indeed, the only commandments about meat, are the avoidance of blood and flesh of swine, and any animals which have died a traumatic death (or are already dead, ie eating carrion) So although Muslims do eat meat, they are not eating it 'for God's sake', so to speak

[b16a2]

I would assume many would. Most nations with capital punishment, don't use throat-slitting as a method to kill the convicted. If it is so humane and supposed to be painless, why isn't it used as a method?

I would say this is due to policy reasons. People would perceive it as inhumane due to the visual effect of slitting ones throat. I watched a program on the best capital punishment method. They concluded the best way is to provide air with less particles of oxygen in it (less dense). It has the effect of placing the 'victim' into a spaced out mood due to lack of oxygen, and they slowly die, but it causes no pain, and they lose their concious thought and do not care that they will die. Was very interesting, but it could get quite expensive taking cows on Ryanair flights then opening the doors, or puttin them in deoxygenating chambers

[Dani]

So you saw some videos and you feel sorry for the animals, fine, but I am pointing out that that is not the correct method. Stop trying to depict a religious mandate, which by the way was originally intended to decrease suffering, with some kind of barbaric practice.

Sure, if I had a choice I would rather be shot in the head than have my throat slit, but no one cares if my brain matter contaminates my bloodstream and spreads mad cow disease. Further, it is possible for a cow to appear stunned and still feel pain, while it is NOT possible for it to bleed out and remain conscious.

The fact is, there are a crapload of Muslims and Jews and they eat a crapload of meat. You, and whatever pansy organization you support, are NEVER going to get them to start shooting cows in the head. It MIGHT be possible to spread standards of animal welfare that reduce suffering to the bare minimum, but all the crying about the "evil religious wackos torturing the noble beasts" is accomplishing nothing.

So far no one has been sticking up for the plants, my spirit ears can hear their death-screams in the death-fields, crying out for justice! I sometimes tell my steak that it got what it deserved for tearing up all that helpless grass and eating it alive.

If you really have a heart you would not eat any harvested plant, only those fruits and nuts the majestic trees willingly offer you by dropping them to Mother Earth.

Diffrence from me and you i dont cear if their is crap load of muslims or jews that stand against my opinion.

I now their slaughter metods are cruel compard to modern metods so i em against it.

If you back down each time their is alot against you then you are a whimp and a weak person..

I now that kosher and halal was inntended as a better way for animals to get slaughter but as whit many things this 2 groups one more then the other have decided to stay in the past and not move forward.

You now what your last comment is so stupid, i can eat meat, i can be against cruel metods of slaughter and still eat meat..

Cheers

[DemonSlayer]

Just a quick note, as God's name has been mentioned

There is nothing in Islamic teaching which says that a person must eat meat. It is quite possible (and religiously permitted) for a Muslim to be a vegetarian. Indeed, the only commandments about meat, are the avoidance of blood and flesh of swine, and any animals which have died a traumatic death (or are already dead, ie eating carrion) So although Muslims do eat meat, they are not eating it 'for God's sake', so to speak

Thanks for clearing that up, I was aware of this however as I came across it in the Quran TeeJay, does the Quran explain why Muslims are not allowed to consume blood or carrion?

I would say this is due to policy reasons. People would perceive it as inhumane due to the visual effect of slitting ones throat. I watched a program on the best capital punishment method. They concluded the best way is to provide air with less particles of oxygen in it (less dense). It has the effect of placing the 'victim' into a spaced out mood due to lack of oxygen, and they slowly die, but it causes no pain, and they lose their concious thought and do not care that they will die. Was very interesting, but it could get quite expensive taking cows on Ryanair flights then opening the doors, or puttin them in deoxygenating chambers

It does indeed look 'violent', but I don't think anyone of us can really explain what getting your throat slit feels like until its done to you The lack of oxygen method does make sense, and I can see no reason for why the person would feel any pain. How about the lethal injection, is that also painless?

I'm not advocating such a method for killing cows, I don't think there is any humane way to KILL anything because the actual act itself is evil.

[TeeJay]

Thanks for clearing that up, I was aware of this however as I came across it in the Quran TeeJay, does the Quran explain why Muslims are not allowed to consume blood or carrion?

Other than it being forbidden, it does not explain why. It's a bit like a parent saying "Do as I say, don't do as I do..." to a child. Not an explanation, just an instruction, which is expected to be obeyed. With regards eating carrion, it could be because decomposing flesh can harbour all sorts of biological nasties, so in some cases, simply not safe to eat. As for blood, I'm not too sure. It could be, similarly, that blood is one of the major disease carriers, so it could be a way of avoiding that. That would just be my own guess though. I think the thing which is often misunderstood about halal and haram, is that they are simply words meaning 'lawfull' and 'forbidden' (or to that effect) In Islamic practice, any meat (other than flesh of swine ) can be both halal and haram, depending on the method with which the animal died. For example, a kebab shop where I eat most days sells fried chicken, which tastes exactly like KFC (a good or bad thing, depending on one's tastes ) I was told by my brothers there, that the fried chicken is halal, but, the chicken nuggets and chicken burgers they sell, are not halal, because they are from a non halal supplier. Yet they are both chicken

[DemonSlayer]

Ahh I see, they're basically rules laid down to be followed by Muslims without an explanation on why its bad for them. Yes I can see the reasoning behind that, like a mother telling a child 'don't play with fire' but without explaining that its dangerous because it can burn us This is one of the reasons why the Quran isn't fulfilling for me, a lot of it contains rules and laws which one should follow, but without much explanation and philosophy behind it, not to mention instilling fear upon the reader of the fate awaiting them if they don't follow Islam.

[TeeJay]

Ahh I see, they're basically rules laid down to be followed by Muslims without an explanation on why its bad for them. Yes I can see the reasoning behind that, like a mother telling a child 'don't play with fire' but without explaining that its dangerous because it can burn us

Absolutely so.

[Edit to add]

Technically speaking, they are rules which Allah laid down to be followed by all mankind, but, it is only those who actually submit to the will of Allah, (Muslims) who actually live by those rules. Afterall, all Islam means, is 'submission', and all Muslim means, is one who submits to the will of Allah. Of course, that is a rather 'conservative' Islamic opinion, and one which is itself over-ruled by one of the final suras in the Qur'an, which states there is no obligation in religion, and that people are free to believe and worship whoever they choose

[DemonSlayer]

Absolutely so.

[Edit to add]

Technically speaking, they are rules which Allah laid down to be followed by all mankind, but, it is only those who actually submit to the will of Allah, (Muslims) who actually live by those rules. Afterall, all Islam means, is 'submission', and all Muslim means, is one who submits to the will of Allah. Of course, that is a rather 'conservative' Islamic opinion, and one which is itself over-ruled by one of the final suras in the Qur'an, which states there is no obligation in religion, and that people are free to believe and worship whoever they choose

It may state that, but it certainly doesn't leave it at that. I can quote many verses from several Suras of what exactly will happen, according to the Quran to those who disbelieve in the message of the Qur'an, and its not a pretty picture

[TeeJay]

It may state that, but it certainly doesn't leave it at that. I can quote many verses from several Suras of what exactly will happen, according to the Quran to those who disbelieve in the message of the Qur'an, and its not a pretty picture

At the end of the day, it's about mankind having free will. Free will to choose to submit, free will to choose not to submit. Of course, that's not to say that there won't be punishment for those who refuse to follow Allah's will, but, that's as with any system of laws: Those who refuse to obey them, are punished. Ultimately though, and something the hadithists tend to forget, is that it is Allah who will ultimately judge (and possibly forgive) those who choose not to believe in Him, not mankind to judge or punish

[Pugwash]

Ahh I see, they're basically rules laid down to be followed by Muslims without an explanation on why its bad for them.

Welcome to organised religion. They all do it, and they all had good reasons 4,000 years ago. If you're crossing a desert en masse, relying on each other for survival, it makes sense to put the fear of God into people, for their own good. The problem comes when those who instituted the idea die without telling anyone it wasn't real, much like the US Government and Al-Quaeda.

I'll give you an anecdote to mull over.

Start with a cage containing five chimpanzees. In the cage, hang a banana on a string and put stairs under it. Before long, an ape will go to the stairs and start to climb towards the banana. As soon as he touches the stairs, spray all of the chimpanzees with freezing cold water.

After a while, another chimpanzee makes an attempt with the same result - all the chimpanzees are sprayed with freezing cold water. This continues through several more attempts. Pretty soon, when another chimpanzee tries to climb the stairs, the other chimpanzees all move to prevent it.

Now, turn off the cold water. Remove one chimpanzee from the cage and replace it with a new one. The new chimpanzee sees the banana and wants to climb the stairs. To his horror all the other chimpanzees attack him. After another attempt, and another attack he knows that if be tries to climb the stairs, he will be assaulted.

Next, remove another of the original five chimpanzees and replace it with a new one. The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked, The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment with enthusiasm. Again, replace a third original chimpanzee with a new one. The new one makes it for the stairs and is attacked as well. Two of the four chimpanzees that beat him have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs nor why they are participating in the beating of the newest ape.

After replacing the fourth and fifth original chimpanzees, all the chimpanzee which have been sprayed with cold water, have been replaced. Nevertheless, no chimpanzee ever again approaches the stairs: Why not? Because that's the way they've always done it and that's the way it's always been around here.

[Dani]

At the end of the day, it's about mankind having free will. Free will to choose to submit, free will to choose not to submit. Of course, that's not to say that there won't be punishment for those who refuse to follow Allah's will, but, that's as with any system of laws: Those who refuse to obey them, are punished. Ultimately though, and something the hadithists tend to forget, is that it is Allah who will ultimately judge (and possibly forgive) those who choose not to believe in Him, not mankind to judge or punish

So you belive i will be punished becasue i dont belive in allah?

Then i em sure you see me as a less of a human since i em a non beliver?

I forgot what muslims called non belivers? and what is said about non belivers in the quran ?

Cheers

[DemonSlayer]

Thanks for your input. Also please don't feel that I am 'singling' out Islam because Christianity teaches that a very similar punishment awaits those who don't 'accept' Christ and the Jews believe that you have to be a special 'race' of people to be called the Children of God, (please correct me if I'm wrong, anyone).

I can certainly understand the concept, of laws for mankind to follow, and if those laws are broken or not followed, a punishment awaits it. What about those who never come to hear of those laws at all. There are certainly people living in this earth who live in such isolated areas, where they haven't and probably will never come to hear about Christianity, Islam, Judaism or any other religion. You see this is where I believe, that it shouldn't be a particular RELIGION that should be followed, but laws themselves, in other words, it should be how you live, your way of life essentially.

[DemonSlayer]

So you belive i will be punished becasue i dont belive in allah?

Then i em sure you see me as a less of a human since i em a non beliver?

I forgot what muslims called non belivers? and what is said about non belivers in the quran ?

Cheers

Dani, the Quran states that for those who don't follow the way of life as prescribed by God, whose name in the Arabic language is Allah, will be punished. If I recall, I remember coming across a verse which showed that if Christians practiced Christianity 'in the way its supposed to be' and Judasim 'in the way its supposed to be' then they will also make it to Paradise. However I then came across another verse which I found contradictory which says that Christians and Jews won't make it into Paradise, essentially because those religions are corrupt.

The term for a non-believer is Kuffr or Kuffar...

EDIT: I think we should stop discussing religion on this topic, its not taken lightly by the mods on this board and if this continues, the thread will sooner or later get deleted.

[doc savage]

Diffrence from me and you i dont cear if their is crap load of muslims or jews that stand against my opinion.

I now their slaughter metods are cruel compard to modern metods so i em against it.

If you back down each time their is alot against you then you are a whimp and a weak person..

I now that kosher and halal was inntended as a better way for animals to get slaughter but as whit many things this 2 groups one more then the other have decided to stay in the past and not move forward.

You now what your last comment is so stupid, i can eat meat, i can be against cruel metods of slaughter and still eat meat..

Cheers

You are responding to my comment that there is no way for you to change these practices (Kosher/Halal), but ignoring my statement and references that show they are actually far less cruel than the ones you support. I realize you have seen some messed up videos, but you are using those to condemn religious slaughter in it's entirety.

I now their slaughter metods are cruel compard to modern metods so i em against it.

That simply isn't true. Imagine an animal shocked by electricity or paralyzed by head trauma and immobile, having parts of it sliced off while it still feels pain. It may look better, but it is vastly more cruel. There is a lot more going on than what you can see in a video.

I don't care if my meat is Kosher, but I do want the animal to be killed in a humane fashion. Also, shooting a bolt into it's skull is a great way to spread mad cow disease, and I would rather not get that. Kosher slaughter can be performed humanely. When you see people getting murdered, the nice man with the sword usually finishes up his speech, then saws through the victims neck with very little grace. This is not only severing the neck arteries but the trachea as well, obviously causing a great deal of pain not to mention the psychological trauma and fear, enhanced by all the adrenaline caused by anticipation. In the cow's case, the cut is supposed to be made with a razor sharp and very long blade, in one swift slicing motion. This is done through the neck arteries but not the trachea. The effect is similar to cutting yourself shaving--very little pain due to the sharpness of the blade and the fact that the cut is performed with the edge only, not the tip. Death would occur in a similar way to oxygen deprivation, as the brain is not getting any blood whatsoever unconsciousness could occur in as little as 5 seconds. The videos of people grabbing a cow then stabbing a short knife into the neck and cutting only a few blood vessels would of course agitate the animal and it would take a long time to bleed to death. In modern, responsible Kosher slaughter the animal does not bleed to death, it dies from immediate loss of oxygen to the brain.

As for the bit about the plants, that was more meant for Demonslayer than you. It is his belief that killing animals is evil;I can argue just as effectively that killing plants is just as evil.