China and animals

[TeeJay]

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.

[Pugwash]

A simple search for "Professor Schultz and his colleague Dr. Hazim of the Hanover University" will confirm these articles.

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.

Please show me the paper.

[TeeJay]

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.

[Emmzy]

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!

[TeeJay]

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...

[Pugwash]

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.

Prove? If you remove the central nervous system of a living being through trauma, it dies pretty much instantly. I can't believe you're arguing against this as it's established biology. It's the benchmark against which tests are made.

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. The only reason Halal (and Kosher - let's not make this just about Islam) is allowed is because it's a religious freedom granted by the governments. 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?

Hit up Google, I'm sure it'll be there somewhere.

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?

[TeeJay]

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.

[jnagy]

killing and death are the result of SIN.at all levels.unfortunately,if you want meat,you must kill.according to the bible,when the earth is rejuvinated,the lion will lay down with the lamb and eat grass like an oxen!no more lions eating animals alive on the plains of africa.bye the way IS it cruel when an animal like lion or bear or crocodile brutally kills by all kind of methods?you must ask yourself if you are the product of evolution or a loving god.if you believe in evolution,like the majority of chinese,then who cares how you treat your food.it is just food.

[jnagy]

who here has actually killed an animal before?i'd hate to think this is a bunch of people talking about things they know nothing about other than what somebody told them.

[Victoria]

who here has actually killed an animal before?i'd hate to think this is a bunch of people talking about things they know nothing about other than what somebody told them.

When I said I was an English country girl, I was only half-exaggerating. My granddad taught me to shoot when I was little. And of course, I fish. So yes, I've killed an animal. Never rung its neck, or sliced its jugular. But killing is killing.

I don't look like this though, Marrick.

BTW, the worst killing of an animal I've ever seen is when the Two Fat Ladies dipped a live crustacean into boiling water. Nightmarish!

How come animal rights' activists don't ever boycott Red Lobster?

[jnagy]

i did go back and see where you said you,ve hunted ,victoria.myself included.not so much anymore.i still fish all the time,mostly trout.sometimes when i'm in the river and catch a fish i just hit his head on a rock until he quits moving,then stuff it down my waders.i will be the first to admit this is very brutal.but if i want meat it has to be done.if i thought i could stay big and strong eating veggies i would.but you cannot get enough protein from vegetables unless you eat your bodyweight everyday or have a special stomach.but i mostly practice catch and release so there will be enough fish in the future.anybody else here a natural born killer of animal life?also a post earlier said something about china being a cause of alot of animals becoming endangered.who cares as the strong ones will survive and go on to mutate into new stronger better suited animals that will one day challenge us for supremecy of the globe.shouldn't we just wipe them out now and save ourselves the trouble in the future?only kidding.but aren't new animals evolving as we speak?i'll answer that myself.NOPE.that is why everyone is concerned about endangered species.we instinctively know when they are gone,that's it,end of the road.nothing new coming up the evolutionary tree.

Edited March 17, 2008 by jnagy

[jnagy]

I hunt

what?

[anton]

jnagy, i apologize (i've been doing alot of that today!) for putting in "spam" as rating. it was an accident.

i have killed (not hunted) cattle before. it was for meat and there was a phase in time where my family just did not trust the meats that were coming into our Giants (supermarkets in PA), so we went to a local farmer and here is how we got our meat:

farmer took cow, caged it, cage had wheels.

farmer brought it into shed, or place where you kill it (what do you call them?)

farmer gave dad the rifle, he shot it in the head, cow agonized for fifteen-thirty seconds and then collapsed.

farmer hooked the hooves and hung it. dad slit the throat to drain the blood.

i don't know if this is humane or not, or if it is cruel, or not, but i'm sure the animal feels pain and i assume it to be harmful to the cow. and yes, you may call me an ar-se-hole now.

[jnagy]

are you the one responsible for the little blue question mark beside my name,anton?is that what you mean?no problem if that was you.i can be confusing at times.what is the world's largest ungulate?giraffe?

[doc savage]

This reminds me of the debate about lobsters, not a cute or friendly animal but still much effort has been made to find faster and more humane ways to end their lives: secret life of lobsters

How would you like to be dispatched?

"While I had always said that I wanted to die in bed, what I really meant was that in my old age I wanted to be stepped on by an elephant while making love." -- Roger Zelazny

[anton]

are you the one responsible for the little blue question mark beside my name,anton?is that what you mean?no problem if that was you.i can be confusing at times.what is the world's largest ungulate?giraffe?

Any mark next to your name means whatever the majority of ratings you receive.

See my name? It has a "check mark" because most of my ratings come from "agree" ratings.

I put SPAM, but it was an accident!

[Victoria]

I put SPAM, but it was an accident!

Anton, you can change a rating at any time. They are not permanent.

(Refreshing the page brings up the ratings again)

@Jnagy: Done! At least, until Anton mistakenly rates you with a Spam and WTF again.

[Pugwash]

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.

That's not how it works. I never had you down as a fundamentalist.

[TeeJay]

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

Edited March 17, 2008 by TeeJay

[jnagy]

i can't stand the fact i have a question mark beside my name.i feel as if i'm being discriminated against.

Edited March 17, 2008 by jnagy

[Pugwash]

Also, you have refused to answer my question, about if supermarkets are prepared to pay hunters for bringing in meat.

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. Where did you get the impression that I bought headshot venison from my local Spar?

Is Halal more cruel than regular slaughter? The governments of the western world seem to think so. Under religious freedom, Halal gets special dispensation in spite of its cruelty.

Is every scientific experiment ever carried out available for online perusal?

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

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?

[KB]

The problem with this humane slaughter discussion is that people are taking it for granted that animals think in a human way.

Fact is if show a cow a knife, gun, bazooka or even a frigging tank she's going to say "Moo", but let her smell blood and thats when the eyes start rolling.

It is for this reason that abattoir slaughter can never be humane, the cows can smell blood from the holding pens, the average person can smell it from half a mile down the road.

Ken

Oh and the most humane means of slaughter...the frigging tank......boom and it's over

[Victoria]

Is Halal more cruel than regular slaughter? The governments of the western world seem to think so. Under religious freedom, Halal gets special dispensation in spite of its cruelty.

Western European governments.

In North America, it would be UNTHINKABLE to prevent halal practises.

Quite simply, there are more Jewish people here, and Muslims are its secondary happy beneficiaries. Not only is population a consideration, but the impact of Jewish culture on American society must be remembered.

I'm not saying that Europeans have not felt the impact of Jewish influence in their cultures (entertainment, etc.). But it remains a minority group, made more so after WWII.

Ironically, in today's politically-correct climate, outlawing Halal practises would be seen primarily as anti-semitic and VIRULENTLY so. Any number of rabbis and university professors would testify in Congressional Panels, and the hubbub would be extraordinary.

That's simply not the case in Norway.

Don't feel this response is only about Jewish people. The same would be true of outlawing firearms. Quite simply, in the US one cannot do that because gun-owning culture is driven by blue-collar folks.

If it were a hobby of the toffs, like it is in Europe, it would stand a better chance of being made illegal. People with weakened or unpopular positions always get the shaft, as the Muslims in Europe are learning.

[Pugwash]

Western European governments.

In North America, it would be UNTHINKABLE to prevent halal practises.

Um, whuh? How do you interpret what I said to disagree with that? It's precisely what I'm saying.

US Law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humane_Slaughter_Act

"The act contains a broad exemption for all animals slaughtered in accordance with religious law. This generally applies to animals killed for the kosher and Halal meat market. Strict interpretation of kashrut generally requires that the animal be fully sensible when its carotid artery is cut."

Under both US and European law, an exception is made to the cruelty laws with religious butchery. That's the point I'm making.

[Victoria]

Um, whuh? How do you interpret what I said to disagree with that? It's precisely what I'm saying.

Very well, I'll retract the specific rebuttal.

But I was reacting to the OUTLAWING in Norway of halal practises, a Western European country, which is where this thread has been sidetracked.

Perhaps you'll agree, dispensations or not, it's impossible for that outlawing to be made in North America, hence my point.