China and animals

[DemonSlayer]

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, 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.

[Victoria]

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

Mmm, Lassi. How I miss that in the UK -- seen here being sold in Wolverhampton.

And they don't call you guys Indo-Aryans for nothing.

@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.

[Victoria]

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

I never saw that. Thought it was a chick flick.

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]

OMG, the RWG script doesn't allow f-bombs but it does the n-word?

I HATE THAT WORD.

Curiously, I like saying mulignon (Neapolitan slang word meaning black people, and yes, it's their word for eggplant). Humph. Humans are so inconsistent.

[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...

[Dani]

Are you a vegetarian?

If not, why not?

I em no vegan becasue i belive humans are meat eaters, simpel..Thus i also belive we can evolve and not be savages like this Chinese people in the vid..

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.

Try to look beyond the peta label and look at the clip, its cruel and nasty.

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.

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

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.

BS halal and kosher is a brutal act said to be done from a book and is a practise that is outdatet MANY MANY years ago in the sivil part of the world..

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.

peace be upon yourself.

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.

In the case of the US and jews, thank god Norway is Norway we are not "own" by a lobby group called aipac

Kosher is just as bad and cruel pratice as halal done by a group of people that also are blinded by what a book says

Key words there being look like

People are reacting to the sight of blood, and any thrashing/noises the beasts might be making. Those are autonomic reactions, not conscious reactions. As the articles proved, the animals are actually unconscious within seconds, and do not experience any pain. As unpleasant as those actions may appear, the animals are not aware of them. They are already unconscious.

Yeah to stand up and look dazed is also normal??

Its cruel and shoud be illegal.

Ill end this debate whit this and leave you all to think..Norway is one of the best countrys to live inn, hummm

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."

- Mahatma Gandhi

[doc savage]

I read somewhere that we don't have the right teeth to be natural herbivores, but I guess you can come up with data to fit any set of beliefs.

If we weren't meant to eat animals, they shouldn't be so damn tasty.

I have a hard time with comparing riot police clubbing Tibetian monks to death in the street to slaughtering animals for food. I love dogs, I'm totally against cruelty in any form, but if they want to eat them how is it any different from a cow, sheep, pig, fish, or lobster? Here are some legitimate guidelines for choosing what to eat:

1) Is it a person? If yes, do not eat.

2) Is it endangered? Open to some debate, but probably a bad idea to eat something if there are only 100 or so left living. Maybe with careful conservation your grandkids can eat manatee steaks with bald eagle eggs!

3) Is it poisonous? Try not to eat the poisonous bits but pretty much everything has some good meat on it.

[Victoria]

Ill end this debate whit this and leave you all to think..Norway is one of the best countrys to live inn, hummm

One word. LUTEFISK!

[KB]

Ken

[jnagy]

demon slayer is correct about humans not being originally designed to eat meat.but,we sure eat it now.ok,i've figured out the most humane way to kill an animal.wait until it falls asleep then shoot it in the head.voila!also,in reply to doc savage's post about teeth:they mean nothing when it comes to what type food an animal eats.a gorilla has huge sharp daggers for teeth and they are herbivores.there is also a deer species that has huge canine teeth.the majority of a bears diet consists of vegetable matter.even a hummingbird has teeth and they drink nectar.

[DemonSlayer]

Mmm, Lassi. How I miss that in the UK -- seen here being sold in Wolverhampton.

And they don't call you guys Indo-Aryans for nothing.

My parents drink that a lot, but its milk for me Have to keep my strength up

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

Yes, its actually ironic that onions are a staple food in Indian cooking. I guess its just the case of people doing what they wish. You have some people who want to follow religion 'by the book' and others who take a more relaxed approach. I have come across verses in scripture which directly forbids meat and alcohol, but many people still consume these. Personally I still eat onions and garlic, actually within each of the three categories, theres 'levels' within each one So the effects of eating onions for example does not have the same strong negative effect as consuming meat.

[Pugwash]

demon slayer is correct about humans not being originally designed to eat meat.but,we sure eat it now.

We actually have the right teeth to eat fish, like bears. Our intestines are far too long to be pure carnivores, though.

So, biologically we should live off veg and fish, with the occasional meat when we can't get anything else.

ps. But not Lutefisk.

[ryyannon]

Mmmmm - Lutefisk!

Crasy stuff!

[TeeJay]

Try to look beyond the peta label and look at the clip, its cruel and nasty.

BS halal and kosher is a brutal act said to be done from a book and is a practise that is outdatet MANY MANY years ago in the sivil part of the world..

Kosher is just as bad and cruel pratice as halal done by a group of people that also are blinded by what a book says

Yeah to stand up and look dazed is also normal??

Its cruel and shoud be illegal.

No, it's not. There is evidence proving that it is more humane than bolt killing. You saying it is cruel, is not going to make it so, just because you say so.

Of course, if you would care to provide evidence which disproves the articles linked then feel free. And by that I do mean evidence. Scientifically conducted evidence. Not just a few clips which offend the squeamish. There are probably a whole lot of people who would become vegetarians if they actually knew how animals were slaughtered (by whatever method) simply because they don't like connecting the steak on their plate, with the happy cow saying "Eat more chicken..."

[ryyannon]

Mmmm - Bolt gun killers.

Crasy guys...

[doc savage]

I have a strange craving for a steak with onions, washed down with Boddington's.

[jnagy]

we have the right teeth to eat fish?my teeth look nothing like a shark's teeth.again, teeth mean nothing when it comes to type of food eaten.i would also like to ask Dani, who started this topic,what makes him think we can evolve into a more civil human.we just emerged from the bloodiest century in human history.seems we're headed the other direction.

[DemonSlayer]

Yes, Jnagy the point you mentioned about the Gorillas having sharp canine teeth, yet their diets are almost purely derived from plants and fruit, and only occasionally eating insects. Also I don't believe that some ancient civilizations used to hunt and eat animals like the wild cavemen did.

[doc savage]

It's kind of silly to say that humans are not natural omnivores as we are the best hunters, throwers, and trappers in the animal kingdom. What do you propose the Eskimos eat, nuts and berries?

[TeeJay]

we have the right teeth to eat fish?my teeth look nothing like a shark's teeth.again, teeth mean nothing when it comes to type of food eaten.i would also like to ask Dani, who started this topic,what makes him think we can evolve into a more civil human.we just emerged from the bloodiest century in human history.seems we're headed the other direction.

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

[DemonSlayer]

Firstly, are the eskimos there because they want to preserve tradition or they're forced to live there?

You have brought up a group, which PROBABLY might die if they don't consume meat, however what about the large majority of the human population who are not in this situation.

Humans are NOT natural hunters. Do you see any people hunting deer by chasing one, and killing it using its bare hands (or teeth)? A lion could do that with relative ease, because it is DESIGNED to do so. We have to use guns, spears, darts or whatever to do kill them.

[ryyannon]

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

What's changed, TeeJay, is the scale, the numbers, the mag-ni-tude, dude.

You're saying that it seems worse just because we hear about every little homocide or genocide via the media. That's not true: it's worse because it is worse.

[TeeJay]

What's changed, TeeJay, is the scale, the numbers, the mag-ni-tude, dude.

You're saying that it seems worse just because we hear about every little homocide or genocide via the media. That's not true: it's worse because it is worse.

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

[narikaa]

Also selective history lessons jade peoples views & understanding too

The genocides perpetrated by Shaka Zulu make Hitler's little European sojourn look like a Sunday school outing by comparison but few in the 'educated' world would know.

.

[Pugwash]

The genocides perpetrated by Shaka Zulu make Hitler's little European sojourn look like a Sunday school outing by comparison but few in the 'educated' world would know.

I'll have to disagree there.

Shaka Zulu: 2 Million with a higher figure attributed to people dying trying to getting out of the way. [1]

Hitler: 16 Million (10M+Slavs, 5M+ Jews) with war crimes courts putting it at 26 Million. [2]

On top of that, the fact that Hitler did it on our doorstep (or in the case of Americans, they were involved) makes it more reported by History lessons.

[1] "His 10-year-long kingship had resulted in more than 2 million deaths by warfare alone, not counting the deaths during mass tribal migrations to escape his armies." http://www.historynet.com/wars_conflicts/1...?page=4&c=y

[2] "The Holocaust was the worst genocide in history." http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761559508/Holocaust.html

[ryyannon]

Also selective history lessons jade peoples views & understanding too

The genocides perpetrated by Shaka Zulu make Hitler's little European sojourn look like a Sunday school outing by comparison but few in the 'educated' world would know.

Yeah, right.

"At his death, Shaka ruled over 250,000 people and could muster more than 50,000 warriors, whose iron discipline equaled that of the Roman legions in their prime. His 10-year-long kingship had resulted in more than 2 million deaths by warfare alone...".

"warfare alone": it's called a nuance. But I guess you have to be 'educated' to understand it.

http://www.billpetro.com/johnpetro/