Animal sacrifice: out of fashion

[dybmh]

LMAO!! Why did you search for sensate?

Because thats what you were talking about when you posted the links. I uess I was right, theyre irrelevant. I'm glad I didn't spend any time on it.

 

[dybmh]

You are full of fail today. Repeating a failed argument is just another way of admitting that you are wrong.

Nope. You have yet to accurately find any faults in my source. Primarliy because you aren't reading it.

And the article that I provided applied to the journal as a whole. You chose a poor source. Meanwhile the videos that i did post refute your claims.

Nope. That's not true. You need to read the whole wiki article. I know you don't reading isn't your thing. You often complain if a post is longer than 6 sentences. Or you're on your tablet, or whatever other bovine excrement excuse you toss out there.

Nope. What you're seeing is addressed in the research I brought. But you have to read it, and use your brain.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope. You have yet to accurately find any faults in my source. Primarliy because you aren't reading it.



Nope. That's not true. You need to read the whole wiki article. I know you don't reading isn't your thing. You often complain if a post is longer than 6 sentences. Or you're on your tablet, or whatever other bovine excrement excuse you toss out there.

Nope. What you're seeing is addressed in the research I brought. But you have to read it, and use your brain.

I can't help those that refuse to hear. I will just repeat what has been said about it and that you could not refute: The source has a problem with accuracy. It is a pay to publish site, that is borderline predatory. It is no different from the source that I linked that refutes your claims. The videos that I posted refuted your claims as well.


The stress indicators appear to be reactions that occur whether an animal is conscious or not. That means that they do not directly indicate pain. Worse yet, they are no better for your method. I should have mentioned this earlier. You did not consider the error bars associated with them. They were huge compared to the measurements and they overlapped as a result.



Lastly you did not understand how to read the Wiki article as shown by your foolish use of the search function. Don't go attacking others when you don't know what you are doing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because thats what you were talking about when you posted the links. I uess I was right, theyre irrelevant. I'm glad I didn't spend any time on it.

Yes, that was the conclusion for this debate. It did not have to be in the article. You did not use your brain.

 

[dybmh]

I can't help those that refuse to hear. I will just repeat what has been said about it and that you could not refute: The source has a problem with accuracy. It is a pay to publish site, that is borderline predatory. It is no different from the source that I linked that refutes your claims. The videos that I posted refuted your claims as well.

My source comes from multiple academic institutions. It's current. Verifiable. Yours is none of those things. My source is much more reliable.

The stress indicators appear to be reactions that occur whether an animal is conscious or not. That means that they do not directly indicate pain. Worse yet, they are no better for your method. I should have mentioned this earlier. You did not consider the error bars associated with them. They were huge compared to the measurements and they overlapped as a result.

So you say, but you haven't brought anything to back it up.

Regardless. The EEG data comes from "Europe PMC" from 2005. Your data comes from unpubished data from late 1960s. Again, my data is more reliable.

Lastly you did not understand how to read the Wiki article as shown by your foolish use of the search function. Don't go attacking others when you don't know what you are doing.

Baloney. Now your just mixing up the 4 links you brought. The wiki against mdpi shows that each of their journals has different editors and review boards. I'm not wasting my time with the epinephrine links since they appear to irrelevant.

 

[dybmh]

Yes, that was the conclusion for this debate. It did not have to be in the article. You did not use your brain.

"It's true cause I say so, I'm SubD. When I say it, I don't need to have evidence."

Blah-blah-blah. Worthless.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My source comes from multiple academic institutions. It's current. Verifiable. Yours is none of those things. My source is much more reliable.



So you say, but you haven't brought anything to back it up.

Regardless. The EEG data comes from "Europe PMC" from 2005. Your data comes from unpubished data from late 1960s. Again, my data is more reliable.



Baloney. Now your just mixing up the 4 links you brought. The wiki against mdpi shows that each of their journals has different editors and review boards. I'm not wasting my time with the epinephrine links since they appear to irrelevant.

Then post the EEG data. That is the data that matters.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"It's true cause I say so, I'm SubD. When I say it, I don't need to have evidence."

Blah-blah-blah. Worthless.

No, you just won't own up to your failures. You concentrated on the wrong data. And you did use a poor source.

 

[dybmh]

Then post the EEG data. That is the data that matters.

it's in the article I posted. And I quoted it in the very first post where I linked to it. The one you have still not read. You simply do not read stuff. And then complain, and whine.

No, you just won't own up to your failures. You concentrated on the wrong data. And you did use a poor source.

that is your opinion, and your opinion doesn't hold a thimble-full of value.

if you do some research on your own, you'll see at least several other researchers are using this metric to assess stress and suffering in conventional slaughter.

if you want to argue about sensate this or that, you need to bring something real, credible, academic, current, or I do not care.

 

[Subduction Zone]

it's in the article I posted. And I quoted it in the very first post where I linked to it. The one you have still not read. You simply do not read stuff. And then complain, and whine.



that is your opinion, and your opinion doesn't hold a thimble-full of value.

if you do some research on your own, you'll see at least several other researchers are using this metric to assess stress and suffering in conventional slaughter.

if you want to argue about sensate this or that, you need to bring something real, credible, academic, current, or I do not care.

You have it backwards, again. Since the science, even though you deny it, is on my side , and society is on my side you re the one whose opinion does not hold a thimble full of value.

You won't post the EEG evidence because you know that it supports me. The time that matters when it comes to cruelty is when the animal is conscious. A proper stun, which happens in the vast majority of cases renders the animal unconscious and insensate. The EEG is used to determine how long after the cut the animals stay conscious. EEG's are not needed when it is obvious that a creature is conscious. The ability to walk is a huge sign that they are conscious and in one of the videos that I linked you could see the poor critters breaking free after the cut and wondering around too often.

If you like I could post videos of stunning and we could compare the two. We really do not need EEG's to see the difference. You do not want to see that evidence because it refutes your claims.

 

[metis]

Animal sacrifices were connected to symbolically sacrificing our natural animal side; pre-humans before civilization, so we could become more civilized and unnatural; will and choice.

Imagine you are hungry and there is a large animal sacrifice of hundred of pounds of prime steak and lamb, that you can smell and see cooking until it is burnt and unusable. You needed to suppress your salivating and natural urge to reach out and eat. You would not only be required to attend, but you would also be required to give your best food animal to the fire pit. It made you harder and more willful. It may also require you work harder to make up for the deficit in food; fight prehuman siesta time.

The animals were eaten as the cooked meat was given largely to the poor. What was burnt were the innards, the skin, and the blood.

 

[dybmh]

You have it backwards, again. Since the science, even though you deny it, is on my side , and society is on my side you re the one whose opinion does not hold a thimble full of value.

I have current academic research.

You won't post the EEG evidence because you know that it supports me.

I did post it. But you won't ( can't? ) read it.

The time that matters when it comes to cruelty is when the animal is conscious.

And they're conconscious when the bolt is slammed through their skull.

A proper stun, which happens in the vast majority of cases renders the animal unconscious and insensate.

By bashing a bolt through their skull.

The EEG is used to determine how long after the cut the animals stay conscious. EEG's are not needed when it is obvious that a creature is conscious.

Yup, and the article I posted has EEG data. I copied and pasted it into my post. The data comes from the Journal "Europe PMC".

The ability to walk is a huge sign that they are conscious and in one of the videos that I linked you could see the poor critters breaking free after the cut and wondering around too often.

Nope. Your own weak self-published, non-academic source addresses this. You cannot trust your eyes or animal movement.

If you like I could post videos of stunning and we could compare the two. We really do not need EEG's to see the difference. You do not want to see that evidence because it refutes your claims.

Now that's funny.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have current academic research.



I did post it. But you won't ( can't? ) read it.



And they're conconscious when the bolt is slammed through their skull.



By bashing a bolt through their skull.



Yup, and the article I posted has EEG data. I copied and pasted it into my post. The data comes from the Journal "Europe PMC".



Nope. Your own weak self-published, non-academic source addresses this. You cannot trust your eyes or animal movement.



Now that's funny.

No, I posted the EEG info and had to point it out to you. When I asked you to post yours again you would not do so. And frankly, I am not the one that needs the EEG info. You do. The videos that I posted were far far stronger evidence. You had no answer.

And dude! Your source was " self published ". It is a pay to publish journal. Your projection is truly epic here.

 

[dybmh]

No, I posted the EEG info and had to point it out to you.

Nope. You brought unpublished, non-academic, EEG info. And you didn't have to point out anything.

When I asked you to post yours again you would not do so.

No, again. You claimed I didn't post it. And I did. You've been lazy and acting like a buffoon this entire debate. You need to learn to read. Your laziness and ineptitude is your problem. Why would I care what you think? Your bias and ego prevents any intelligence from leaking into that so-called brain you have buried inside your rectal cavity.

And frankly, I am not the one that needs the EEG info. You do. The videos that I posted were far far stronger evidence. You had no answer.

The answer is in your own source. What you are seeing is not reliable, and that's why EEG data is needed. But, since you won't read. And are unwillng to think..... meh. You can remain bothced and bungled.

And dude! Your source was " self published ". It is a pay to publish journal. Your projection is truly epic here.

That is not self-published. Peer-reviewed. They are paying for the review process.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope. You brought unpublished, non-academic, EEG info. And you didn't have to point out anything.

LOL! Grasping at straws. You won't post your data because you know that it will refute your argument. That is rather cowardly behavior. And the "unpublished" report was no different from you using a questionable source. You continue to use the "Pot calling the kettle black" fallacy.

No, again. You claimed I didn't post it. And I did. You've been lazy and acting like a buffoon this entire debate. You need to learn to read. Your laziness and ineptitude is your problem. Why would I care what you think? Your bias and ego prevents any intelligence from leaking into that so-called brain you have buried inside your rectal cavity.

More projection. You ignored the evidence that you could not refute. If you demanded that I repost my video links I would gladly do so. You made a claim that you know will refute you. That is why your refuse to post it. You are not fooling anyone when you refuse to do that. Try again. The name calling that you use only applies to you.

You have yet to admit that your data based upon autonomous reactions, that of your "stress indicators" does not apply. You had no answer to the refutation of that argument instead of showing how you acted like a buffoon by searching for a term that I never claimed was in an article. Oh my if I could only package such irony.

The answer is in your own source. What you are seeing is not reliable, and that's why EEG data is needed. But, since you won't read. And are unwillng to think..... meh. You can remain bothced and bungled.

Then post your supposed EEG data. You are once again only describing yourself when you refuse to do so. Perhaps you are totally ignorant of what stunning an animal does. That would be a very very weak excuse for your behavior. If you understood what stunning does you would drop this line of debate.

That is not self-published. Peer-reviewed. They are paying for the review process.

LOL! No. Seriously dude. It is a pay to publish source. Those sources are not trusted as much because they have a vested interest in publishing as many articles as possible.

Here is a short lesson in economics. Publishing houses need to may money to survive. There are several possible sources. Your average magazine gets a large percentage of its money from ads. The price one pays for a magazine is only about a third of the total earnings of a magazine:

Magazine Publishing Statistics – WordsRated

wordsrated.com

When it comes to more reliable news sources the percentage of ad revenue drops. The New York Times for example gets 2/3 of its revenue from subscriptions and about 1/5 from adds:

The New York Times Business Model Analysis - FourWeekMBA

The New York Times generated over $2 billion in revenues in 2021, $1.36 billion in subscriptions, $497 million in advertising, and $215 million in other revenues. Of the subscriptions revenues, over $773 million were generated by digital subscriptions, while printed subscriptions generated $588...

fourweekmba.com

When it comes to professional journals ads are all but nonexistent. There are still journals that only work on either a subscription basis or a pay per view service for revenue. In other words subscribers and those interested in specific articles are the ones that pay. They have to have a very high standard to maintain that business model. Less respected, but still valid journals use a combination of payment from the author and subscriptions. The source that you chose was open access. That means that anyone can read it for free. All of their revenue has to come from those paying to publish. If people do not pay them to publish their articles they go out of business. This puts a bit of a conflict of interest on them. They often take substandard articles for the money. That is the sort of source that you used.

 

[Subduction Zone]

​

And since you know that you will lose when brain activity is taken into consideration I decided to do your research for you. This article describes what happens to the brain in both stunning and kosher slaughter:

Cortical function in cattle during slaughter: conventional captive bolt stunning followed by exsanguination compared with shechita slaughter - PubMed

Brain function was examined in adult cattle after conventional captive bolt stunning or shechita slaughter, using eight animals in each treatment. The times to loss of evoked responses (visual and somatosensory) and spontaneous activity in the electro-corticogram were used to determine the onset...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

"Brain function was examined in adult cattle after conventional captive bolt stunning or shechita slaughter, using eight animals in each treatment. The times to loss of evoked responses (visual and somatosensory) and spontaneous activity in the electro-corticogram were used to determine the onset of brain failure. Captive bolt stunning followed by sticking one minute later resulted in immediate and irreversible loss of evoked responses after the stun. Spontaneous cortical activity was lost before sticking in three animals, and in an average of 10 seconds after sticking in the remaining five animals. "


Do you need that translated for you? The animals were out cold instantly when stunned and even activity around the cortex or outer boundary of the brain stopped within ten seconds. That is generally thought to be "noise" but there is a possibility that it is not.

Now compare that to the same results for animals with kosher slaughter:

"The duration of brain function after shechita was very variable, and particularly contrasted with captive bolt stunning with respect to the effects on evoked responses. These were lost between 20 and 126 seconds (means of 77 seconds for somatosensory and 55 seconds for visual evoked responses) and spontaneous activity was lost between 19 and 113 seconds (mean 75 seconds) after slaughter."

That confirms that what can be seen in the videos that you refuse to comment on, I can understand why, is the result of conscious brain activity. Your method is far worse when it comes to evoked responses and it still fails badly when it comes to cortical activity.

 

[We Never Know]

​

And since you know that you will lose when brain activity is taken into consideration I decided to do your research for you. This article describes what happens to the brain in both stunning and kosher slaughter:

Cortical function in cattle during slaughter: conventional captive bolt stunning followed by exsanguination compared with shechita slaughter - PubMed

Brain function was examined in adult cattle after conventional captive bolt stunning or shechita slaughter, using eight animals in each treatment. The times to loss of evoked responses (visual and somatosensory) and spontaneous activity in the electro-corticogram were used to determine the onset...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

"Brain function was examined in adult cattle after conventional captive bolt stunning or shechita slaughter, using eight animals in each treatment. The times to loss of evoked responses (visual and somatosensory) and spontaneous activity in the electro-corticogram were used to determine the onset of brain failure. Captive bolt stunning followed by sticking one minute later resulted in immediate and irreversible loss of evoked responses after the stun. Spontaneous cortical activity was lost before sticking in three animals, and in an average of 10 seconds after sticking in the remaining five animals. "


Do you need that translated for you? The animals were out cold instantly when stunned and even activity around the cortex or outer boundary of the brain stopped within ten seconds. That is generally thought to be "noise" but there is a possibility that it is not.

Now compare that to the same results for animals with kosher slaughter:

"The duration of brain function after shechita was very variable, and particularly contrasted with captive bolt stunning with respect to the effects on evoked responses. These were lost between 20 and 126 seconds (means of 77 seconds for somatosensory and 55 seconds for visual evoked responses) and spontaneous activity was lost between 19 and 113 seconds (mean 75 seconds) after slaughter."

That confirms that what can be seen in the videos that you refuse to comment on, I can understand why, is the result of conscious brain activity. Your method is far worse when it comes to evoked responses and it still fails badly when it comes to cortical activity.

 

[dybmh]

LOL! Grasping at straws. You won't post your data because you know that it will refute your argument.

I did post it. You won't read it. You didn't read my post originally. You won't read it now. I don't care.

That is rather cowardly behavior. And the "unpublished" report was no different from you using a questionable source. You continue to use the "Pot calling the kettle black" fallacy.

Among other things, my sources comes from academic institutions.

More projection. You ignored the evidence that you could not refute. If you demanded that I repost my video links I would gladly do so. You made a claim that you know will refute you. That is why your refuse to post it. You are not fooling anyone when you refuse to do that. Try again. The name calling that you use only applies to you.

Bring something real, current, academic, and relevant, and it won't be ignored. Although that requires work on your part.

You have yet to admit that your data based upon autonomous reactions, that of your "stress indicators" does not apply. You had no answer to the refutation of that argument instead of showing how you acted like a buffoon by searching for a term that I never claimed was in an article. Oh my if I could only package such irony.

Both my source and your non-source address this issue. Your ignorance and refusal to read is your own problem. I'm not going to recite your own source into your ears. Especially if your head is buried inside of your rear.

And I have answered. When the bolt is slammed through the animal's skull that is a source for stress and suffering which can be measured. It isn't unconcious until it is unconcious. Duh. There's more to evaluating the suffering of an animal than when its neck is slit.

Then post your supposed EEG data. You are once again only describing yourself when you refuse to do so. Perhaps you are totally ignorant of what stunning an animal does. That would be a very very weak excuse for your behavior. If you understood what stunning does you would drop this line of debate.

Already done.

LOL! No. Seriously dude. It is a pay to publish source. Those sources are not trusted as much because they have a vested interest in publishing as many articles as possible.

That has nothing to do with "Europe PMC". There's other reasons to have this model, like disseminating academic research to the public without the ivory-tower thought police.

Don't you think it's good to have information and academic research available to the public? Probably not unless it matches your bias.

Besides there's never been a prolem with the actual Journals I'm citing.

Here is a short lesson in economics. Publishing houses need to may money to survive. There are several possible sources. Your average magazine gets a large percentage of its money from ads. The price one pays for a magazine is only about a third of the total earnings of a magazine:

Magazine Publishing Statistics – WordsRated

wordsrated.com

When it comes to more reliable news sources the percentage of ad revenue drops. The New York Times for example gets 2/3 of its revenue from subscriptions and about 1/5 from adds:

The New York Times Business Model Analysis - FourWeekMBA

The New York Times generated over $2 billion in revenues in 2021, $1.36 billion in subscriptions, $497 million in advertising, and $215 million in other revenues. Of the subscriptions revenues, over $773 million were generated by digital subscriptions, while printed subscriptions generated $588...

fourweekmba.com

When it comes to professional journals ads are all but nonexistent. There are still journals that only work on either a subscription basis or a pay per view service for revenue. In other words subscribers and those interested in specific articles are the ones that pay. They have to have a very high standard to maintain that business model. Less respected, but still valid journals use a combination of payment from the author and subscriptions. The source that you chose was open access. That means that anyone can read it for free. All of their revenue has to come from those paying to publish. If people do not pay them to publish their articles they go out of business. This puts a bit of a conflict of interest on them. They often take substandard articles for the money. That is the sort of source that you used.

And are there any ads on MDPI? No? then all of this is the the ramblings of desperation to justify unpublished data from the 1970s.

Ever heard of open-source?

Do you understand it's a good thing? Promotes colaboration, cooperation, and brings resources to people who don't normally have access to them?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did post it. You won't read it. You didn't read my post originally. You won't read it now. I don't care.



Among other things, my sources comes from academic institutions.



Bring something real, current, academic, and relevant, and it won't be ignored. Although that requires work on your part.

[/QUOTE]

My source was just as valid as yours. You do not seem to understand that.

Both my source and your non-source address this issue. Your ignorance and refusal to read is your own problem. I'm not going to recite your own source into your ears. Especially if your head is buried inside of your rear.

Really? And yet you refuse to quote them.

And I have answered. When the bolt is slammed through the animal's skull that is a source for stress and suffering which can be measured. It isn't unconcious until it is unconcious. Duh. There's more to evaluating the suffering of an animal than when its neck is slit.

No, it cannot be measured in the sense that you did. You are once again conflating autonomous reactions with cerebral reactions. This was explained to you. I supported it with sources and you still did not understand. Once again demonstrating that if anyone is in ignorant denial that would be you.

Already done.

Nope, you may have posted once. But you have not posted since I specifically asked for those figures.

That has nothing to do with "Europe PMC". There's other reasons to have this model, like disseminating academic research to the public without the ivory-tower thought police.

Don't you think it's good to have information and academic research available to the public? Probably not unless it matches your bias.

Besides there's never been a prolem with the actual Journals I'm citing.

And yet you cannot quote those supposed figures for me. That is rather odd.

And are there any ads on MDPI? No? then all of this is the the ramblings of desperation to justify unpublished data from the 1970s.

Wow! Amazing. Your reading comprehension continues to worsen. I never claimed that journals have ads. I was referring to all publications as an example I included regular news and magazine articles which do rely on ads. And I also noted that the more reliable sources have fewer ads. They rely more on subscribers. They have less of a conflict of interest as a result.

Ever heard of open-source?

How do you think that open-source gets their funds? They are not paid by some magic slush fund. Open source articles are pay to publish. That is their means of making money.

Wow! Just wow.

Do you understand it's a good thing? Promotes colaboration, cooperation, and brings resources to people who don't normally have access to them?

It can be a good thing, but they also open up the companies to temptations to publish almost anything. That is why predatory journals are a problem.

But I understand. You cannot justify your stance. You have to attack me personally rather than dealing with the arguments. The video evidence shows that you are wrong. The measured brain activity shows that you are wrong as I just demonstrated. Societies are realizing this and that is why more and more countries are making butchery with some sort of stunning illegal. And it is rather sad when the Muslims are scientifically more advanced than the Jews are. I know, it is how I was raised that the Muslims were the "bad guys". So that prejudice still sticks with me a bit. But as I showed before and can show again, more and more Muslims are getting their priests to issue Fatwas ordering stunning to be used in butchery. They still follow the spirit of their laws. You sadly are not.

 

[dybmh]

My source was just as valid as yours. You do not seem to understand that.

Nope, mine came from multiple academic sources. It's current and peer-reviewed.

Really? And yet you refuse to quote them.

I did.

No, it cannot be measured in the sense that you did. You are once again conflating autonomous reactions with cerebral reactions. This was explained to you. I supported it with sources and you still did not understand. Once again demonstrating that if anyone is in ignorant denial that would be you.

Your explanation is an empty assertion.

Nope, you may have posted once. But you have not posted since I specifically asked for those figures.

So what? With the way your acting, consider yourself that I reply at all.

And yet you cannot quote those supposed figures for me. That is rather odd.

And yet you cannot scroll back a few pages. That is rather odd.

Wow! Amazing. Your reading comprehension continues to worsen. I never claimed that journals have ads. I was referring to all publications as an example I included regular news and magazine articles which do rely on ads. And I also noted that the more reliable sources have fewer ads. They rely more on subscribers. They have less of a conflict of interest as a result.

Everything you said was irrelevant.

How do you think that open-source gets their funds? They are not paid by some magic slush fund. Open source articles are pay to publish. That is their means of making money.

MDPI doesn't make money. There is no slush fund.

Wow! Just wow.

I know. It's amazing how completely ignorant and lazy you are being.

It can be a good thing, but they also open up the companies to temptations to publish almost anything. That is why predatory journals are a problem.

It's not a problem for the journals I'm using.

But I understand. You cannot justify your stance. You have to attack me personally rather than dealing with the arguments. The video evidence shows that you are wrong. The measured brain activity shows that you are wrong as I just demonstrated. Societies are realizing this and that is why more and more countries are making butchery with some sort of stunning illegal. And it is rather sad when the Muslims are scientifically more advanced than the Jews are. I know, it is how I was raised that the Muslims were the "bad guys". So that prejudice still sticks with me a bit. But as I showed before and can show again, more and more Muslims are getting their priests to issue Fatwas ordering stunning to be used in butchery. They still follow the spirit of their laws. You sadly are not.

You own source tells you that you cannot trust videos.