China and animals

[Pugwash]

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

It'll not happen in France or the UK either. Impossible, in spite of the farming lobby and animal welfare lobby.

Ironically, it'll only ever be outlawed in countries that don't do much of it.

[TeeJay]

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.

[Victoria]

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.

Even Chinese people in the West agree.

Awww.

[narikaa]

The irony

China after centuries of concocting the most elaborate and diabolic execution methodologies, has during recent times utilised the simple gunshot to the back of the head (tho now favours mobile execution trucks which dispense lethal injections). A method which compared against the enlightened West's equivalents of Hanging, Gassing & Electrocuting was far and away more instantaneous and thus infinately more humane.

Perhaps they just give dogs a hard time on cultural grounds, to keep in touch with their roots etc. (at least they're not binding them between planks of wood and sawing them in half as was their want not so long ago).

.

[Pugwash]

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?

If you separate a brain from the CNS, death is instant. Are you seriously disputing this? You cannot seriously expect people to believe that removing a brain completely is a slower method of killing than starving it of blood. I'll give you your proof: set theory. basic mathematical principles here.

Starving the brain of blood is in the set of removing the brain. One of the effects of removing the brain is cutting off the blood supply. QED, etc.

Come on, it is a basic principle of biology that separating the brain from the CNS causes death. It's what you're trying to achieve with the jugular stuff.

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

[Victoria]

I think it's high time someone mentioned the cruelty of lutefisk.

Not of killing it, but of eating it.

[Pugwash]

I think it's high time someone mentioned the cruelty of lutefisk.

That stuff scares the bejesus out of me. I don't want to live in a country where that sort of thing is thought of as normal.

[Victoria]

That stuff scares the bejesus out of me. I don't want to live in a country where that sort of thing is thought of as normal.

Until recently, I didn't know what caused that horrific aftertaste. I Googled one day, and found out it was LYE. What kind of H

[DemonSlayer]

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

[TeeJay]

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.

[TeeJay]

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

">

[Victoria]

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.

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).

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 !!!

[DemonSlayer]

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.

[TeeJay]

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)

[Victoria]

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.

You mean, like in the subsidiary dairy part of the argument? There might be something in it.

It is said that Caucasians are less lactose intolerant than Africans, etc. because of our more intense historical relationship with livestock.

I can drink milk by the gallonful and love it -- whereas my Italian-Canadian boyfriend is lactose-intolerant (possibly because of Arab or African descent, in Southern Italians).

[TeeJay]

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.

[DemonSlayer]

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.

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

[narikaa]

-- whereas my Italian-Canadian boyfriend is lactose-intolerant (possibly because of Arab or African descent, in Southern Italians).

Calls to mind one of the greatest pieces of acting ever in modern cinema (True Romance):

Clifford Worley: You're Sicilian, huh?

Coccotti: Yeah, Sicilian.

Clifford Worley: Ya know, I read a lot. Especially about things... about history. I find that [censored] fascinating. Here's a fact I don't know whether you know or not. Sicilians were spawned by niggers.

Coccotti: Come again?

Clifford Worley: It's a fact. Yeah. You see, uh, Sicilians have, uh, black blood pumpin' through their hearts. Hey, no, if eh, if eh, if you don't believe me, uh, you can look it up. Hundreds and hundreds of years ago, uh, you see, uh, the Moors conquered Sicily. And the Moors are niggers.

Coccotti: Yes...

Clifford Worley: So you see, way back then, uh, Sicilians were like, uh, wops from Northern Italy. Ah, they all had blonde hair and blue eyes, but, uh, well, then the Moors moved in there, and uh, well, they changed the whole country. They did so much [censored]in' with Sicilian women, huh? That they changed the whole bloodline forever. That's why blonde hair and blue eyes became black hair and dark skin. You know, it's absolutely amazing to me to think that to this day, hundreds of years later, that, uh, that Sicilians still carry that [censored] gene. Now this...

[Coccotti busts out laughing]

Clifford Worley: No, I'm, no, I'm quoting... history. It's written. It's a fact, it's written.

Coccotti: [Laughing] I love this guy.

Clifford Worley: Your ancestors are niggers. Uh-huh.

[starts laughing, too]

Clifford Worley: Hey. Yeah. And, and your great-great-great-great grandmother [censored]ed a [censored], ho, ho, yeah, and she had a half-[censored] kid... now, if that's a fact, tell me, am I lying? 'Cause you, you're part eggplant.

[All laugh]

.

[DemonSlayer]

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.

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. To me all animal slaughter is wrong.

[TeeJay]

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

[TeeJay]

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?

[DemonSlayer]

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.

[DemonSlayer]

Demonslayer:

Animal slaughter is wrong, but you slaughter Demon's? What would PETD (People for the Ethical Treatment of Demons) think. What if you had a cousin or an aunt who was a demon?

Well, demons are hardly good are they? They're forces of evil, and therefore should be removed

[TeeJay]

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'?

[narikaa]

Its simple

If you sever the carotid artery carrying blood TO the brain...unconciousness is almost immediate with death close on its heels.

If you utilise a projectile weapon of sufficient power to blow the brains out of the skull cavity unconciousness & death are immediate.

If you mess either acts up, its a circus

If man or beast understands this is going to happen there is stress & anxiety in abundance

.