Shechita & Halal. Identifiable On All Meat & Meat Products Yes/No.

[DnAuK]

2 minutes ago, Halibut said:

Sure. You can't have large scale meat production without cruelty to animals. If you really care about animals, don't eat them.

What about dairy? Can you have that without animal cruelty?

[Halibut]

11 minutes ago, DnAuK said:

What about dairy? Can you have that without animal cruelty?

Seems unlikely. I still consume dairy products though.

[Robin-H]

19 minutes ago, Halibut said:

Sure. You can't have large scale meat production without cruelty to animals. If you really care about animals, don't eat them.

I'm surprised that people are trying to make that argument (that there is no point trying to minimise suffering). 

 

Yes, of course don't eat animals (or eat, drink or use any animal products) if you want to make sure that you personally are not causing any suffering to any animal. It is of course entirely logical, indeed consistent with that view, that you would want to make sure that when animals are killed, it is done with the least suffering possible. 

Edited August 16, 2019 by Robin-H

[Guest makapaka]

12 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

I'm surprised that people are trying to make that argument (that there is no point trying to minimise suffering). 

 

Yes, of course don't eat animals (or eat, drink or use any animal products) if you want to make sure that you personally are not causing any suffering to any animal. It is of course entirely logical, indeed consistent with that view, that you would want to make sure that when animals are killed, it is done with the least suffering possible. 

The point i'm making is the difference is so marginal - why are people totally accepting of one method and outraged by another?

 

I'm not trying to advocate making animals suffer.

[Robin-H]

20 minutes ago, makapaka said:

The point i'm making is the difference is so marginal - why are people totally accepting of one method and outraged by another?

 

I'm not trying to advocate making animals suffer.

I side with the RPSCA and the British Veterinary Association, as they are both well positioned to have an informed and well rounded view on this matter. 

 

They have both been petitioning the government to end non stun slaughter, which they say results in animals suffering significant pain and distress. Note that the RSPCA and the BVA aren't saying 'well the animals are suffering anyway, so it doesn't matter if they suffer a bit more, so lets just leave it'. I also don't think their reason is latent islamophobia. 

[ANGELFIRE1]

makapaka

Registered User

Members

4,800 posts

Joined Mar 2009

Report post

 

 

 #174

Posted 17 hours ago

  19 hours ago, ANGELFIRE1 said:

Getting boring now,  because only Halal & Shechita persist with the backward abhorrent act of killing without stunning. As per the post title, it must be labelled so as to give the population the choice of choosing a backward abhorrent method of slaughter or indeed one where ALL ANIMALS slaughtered SHOULD be stunned before hand. Surely it is easy to understand.

 

Let me ask you this as a human, you have a choice before you are dispatched, you can have your throat slit and can struggle while watching your life blood draining away before your eyes. Or you can be stunned into unconsciousness before your throat is slit and you bleed to death. 

 

Which would you choose. As a human I would choose the latter, you would choose - 

 

Angel1.

 

 

I would choose neither.

 

 

 

 

I know why, because if you answered the latter it would make your defence of Halal and Shechita a complete mockery. Sometimes it's ok to criticize abhorrent acts, even if done by Islam or Judaism.

 

Angel1. 

[Robin-H]

6 minutes ago, gaz 786 said:

You said there's no. Point in trying to minimise suffering earlier? Make your mind up. 

Haha no I didn’t. Read the blinking comment! 

 

I was saying it doesn’t make sense to say that, so I was saying the exactly opposite. 

[Guest makapaka]

5 hours ago, ANGELFIRE1 said:

makapaka

Registered User

Members

4,800 posts

Joined Mar 2009

Report post

 

 

 #174

Posted 17 hours ago

  19 hours ago, ANGELFIRE1 said:

Getting boring now,  because only Halal & Shechita persist with the backward abhorrent act of killing without stunning. As per the post title, it must be labelled so as to give the population the choice of choosing a backward abhorrent method of slaughter or indeed one where ALL ANIMALS slaughtered SHOULD be stunned before hand. Surely it is easy to understand.

 

Let me ask you this as a human, you have a choice before you are dispatched, you can have your throat slit and can struggle while watching your life blood draining away before your eyes. Or you can be stunned into unconsciousness before your throat is slit and you bleed to death. 

 

Which would you choose. As a human I would choose the latter, you would choose - 

 

Angel1.

 

 

I would choose neither.

 

 

 

 

I know why, because if you answered the latter it would make your defence of Halal and Shechita a complete mockery. Sometimes it's ok to criticize abhorrent acts, even if done by Islam or Judaism.

 

Angel1. 

You’ve either don’t understand my point or are purposefully ignoring it.

 

heres another question-

 

what isn’t abhorrent about non-halal/shechita slaughter?

[Robin-H]

5 hours ago, gaz 786 said:

So you agree animals should die with the least pain possible? 

I think I have made my opinion quite clear in numerous comments on this thread. 

 

Wherever possible, pain and suffering should be minimised. 

[ANGELFIRE1]

16 hours ago, makapaka said:

You’ve either don’t understand my point or are purposefully ignoring it.

 

heres another question-

 

what isn’t abhorrent about non-halal/shechita slaughter?

My LAST post on this subject, as you are unable to grasp the fact that stunned animals have a "better" death than the unstunned in your warped desire to defend Shechita and Halal slaughter against all the evidence provided.

 

For the LAST time, any death of any slaughtered animal is in itself rather gruesome, it involves much blood and gore. By killing without stunning you are abusing a sentient animal.

 

This from, Compassion in world farming. 

 

" Sentient animals are aware of their feelings and emotions. These could be negative feelings such as pain, frustration and fear. It is logical to suppose that sentient animals also enjoy feelings of comfort, enjoyment, contentment, and perhaps even great delight and joy.

Science shows us some interesting abilities in farm animals:

Sheep can recognise up to 50 other sheep’s faces and remember them for two years

Cows show excitement when they discover how to open a gate leading to a food reward "

 

Please do not bother to reply as you try to defend the undefendable, which I cannot tolerate. And for what, to appease some deity that lives in the sky and is all powerful. GIVE ME STRENGTH. The Beano & Dandy are more factual.

 

My last word on this subject. Have a happy life condoning the abuse of sentient animals, your God must really admire you, In this instance, I certainly don't.

 

Angel1.

 

 

Edited August 17, 2019 by ANGELFIRE1