• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Animal sacrifice: out of fashion

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
How ironic, he still has not reposted his supposed data. Oh well.

And he has no answer to the articles that refute him. Who is being lazy?

As to MDPI, yes, it has problems:


MDPI was included on Jeffrey Beall's list of predatory open access publishing companies in February 2014.[21] Beall's concern was that "MDPI's warehouse journals contain hundreds of lightly-reviewed articles that are mainly written and published for promotion and tenure purposes rather than to communicate science."[21] Beall also claimed that MDPI used email spam to solicit manuscripts[31] and that the company listed researchers, including Nobel laureates, on their editorial boards without their knowledge.[21] MDPI responded to Beall's claims, seeking to debunk them.[32] Chemist Peter Murray-Rust criticized the inclusion of MDPI in Beall's list, stating that his criticism of the publisher "lacks evidence" and is "irresponsible".[33]

MDPI made a successful appeal to the Beall's list appeals board in October 2015, and was removed from the list.[19][34][35] Even after its removal, Beall remained critical of MDPI; in December 2015 he wrote: "it is clear that MDPI sees peer review as merely a perfunctory step that publishers have to endure before publishing papers and accepting money from the authors," and "it's clear that MDPI's peer review is managed by clueless clerical staff in China."[36][37]

Beall's list was shut down in 2017.[38] Beall later wrote that he had been pressured to shut down the list by his employer University of Colorado Denver and various publishers, specifically mentioning MDPI as a publisher that had "tried to be as annoying as possible to the university so that the officials would get so tired of the emails that they would silence me just to make them stop."[22]

In August 2018, 10 senior editors (including the editor-in-chief) of the journal Nutrients resigned, alleging that MDPI forced the replacement of the editor-in-chief because of his high editorial standards and for resisting pressure to "accept manuscripts of mediocre quality and importance."[18]

In June 2020, the would-be guest editors of a special issue in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Health resigned after being informed by an MDPI representative that a quota of publication-fee exemptions allocated to the special issue could only be given to scholars from developed countries.[44][45]

In 2021, five members of the editorial board of the journal Vaccines resigned after Vaccines published a controversial article that misused data to reach the incorrect conclusion that vaccines against COVID-19 had no clear benefit.[46][47]

In December 2021, the Faculty of Science of the University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice announced that it will stop financial support for publishing in MDPI journals, officially recommended against publishing in or reviewing for MDPI, and warned that publications in MDPI journals might not be taken into account for evaluations of employees and departments.[48] In January 2023, Zhejiang Gongshang University (浙江工商大学) in Hangzhou, China, announced it would no longer include articles published in Hindawi, MDPI, and Frontiers journals when evaluating researcher performance.[49][50]

In December 2020, the Chinese Academy of Sciences published a list of journals that may suffer from issues of scientific quality and other risk characteristics.[25] There were 22 MDPI group journals in the 65 journals given in its initial list. MDPI responded to the list promising to communicate with the academy and improve its journals' parameters to remove the affected journals from the list as soon as possible.[51] The list was updated in December 2021 and reduced to only 41 journals, of which seven MDPI journals were included.[52]

The article goes on and on. The source clearly has problems.

As to it being "non-profit". It is based in China and forgive me for not trusting the Chinese to make sure that a source of theirs follows the non-profit rules of other countries. I am a bit skeptical about that.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
How ironic, he still has not reposted his supposed data. Oh well.

And he has no answer to the articles that refute him. Who is being lazy?

As to MDPI, yes, it has problems:


MDPI was included on Jeffrey Beall's list of predatory open access publishing companies in February 2014.[21] Beall's concern was that "MDPI's warehouse journals contain hundreds of lightly-reviewed articles that are mainly written and published for promotion and tenure purposes rather than to communicate science."[21] Beall also claimed that MDPI used email spam to solicit manuscripts[31] and that the company listed researchers, including Nobel laureates, on their editorial boards without their knowledge.[21] MDPI responded to Beall's claims, seeking to debunk them.[32] Chemist Peter Murray-Rust criticized the inclusion of MDPI in Beall's list, stating that his criticism of the publisher "lacks evidence" and is "irresponsible".[33]

MDPI made a successful appeal to the Beall's list appeals board in October 2015, and was removed from the list.[19][34][35] Even after its removal, Beall remained critical of MDPI; in December 2015 he wrote: "it is clear that MDPI sees peer review as merely a perfunctory step that publishers have to endure before publishing papers and accepting money from the authors," and "it's clear that MDPI's peer review is managed by clueless clerical staff in China."[36][37]

Beall's list was shut down in 2017.[38] Beall later wrote that he had been pressured to shut down the list by his employer University of Colorado Denver and various publishers, specifically mentioning MDPI as a publisher that had "tried to be as annoying as possible to the university so that the officials would get so tired of the emails that they would silence me just to make them stop."[22]

In August 2018, 10 senior editors (including the editor-in-chief) of the journal Nutrients resigned, alleging that MDPI forced the replacement of the editor-in-chief because of his high editorial standards and for resisting pressure to "accept manuscripts of mediocre quality and importance."[18]

In June 2020, the would-be guest editors of a special issue in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Health resigned after being informed by an MDPI representative that a quota of publication-fee exemptions allocated to the special issue could only be given to scholars from developed countries.[44][45]

In 2021, five members of the editorial board of the journal Vaccines resigned after Vaccines published a controversial article that misused data to reach the incorrect conclusion that vaccines against COVID-19 had no clear benefit.[46][47]

In December 2021, the Faculty of Science of the University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice announced that it will stop financial support for publishing in MDPI journals, officially recommended against publishing in or reviewing for MDPI, and warned that publications in MDPI journals might not be taken into account for evaluations of employees and departments.[48] In January 2023, Zhejiang Gongshang University (浙江工商大学) in Hangzhou, China, announced it would no longer include articles published in Hindawi, MDPI, and Frontiers journals when evaluating researcher performance.[49][50]

In December 2020, the Chinese Academy of Sciences published a list of journals that may suffer from issues of scientific quality and other risk characteristics.[25] There were 22 MDPI group journals in the 65 journals given in its initial list. MDPI responded to the list promising to communicate with the academy and improve its journals' parameters to remove the affected journals from the list as soon as possible.[51] The list was updated in December 2021 and reduced to only 41 journals, of which seven MDPI journals were included.[52]

The article goes on and on. The source clearly has problems.

As to it being "non-profit". It is based in China and forgive me for not trusting the Chinese to make sure that a source of theirs follows the non-profit rules of other countries. I am a bit skeptical about that.

All of this has been addressed. Beall is a librarian, not a scientist. The complaints by him were reviewed by a 3rd party and dropped. Looks like you clipped that part out. It was right in the middle, it had to be intentional. Naughty-naughty.
2014 OASPA evaluation​
Following Beall's criticism of MDPI, the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA) conducted an investigation in April 2014. This investigation was based on the controversy surrounding two papers, one in Life,[39] the other in Nutrients;[40] the listing of Nobel Prize winners on the website; the roles of editorial board members and of Shu-Ki Lin within the company; and the functions of the different office locations. OASPA concluded that MDPI satisfactorily meets the OASPA Membership Criteria.[41]​

What's good about the open-source community is that everything is wide open and available to be scrutinized. Here's their peer-review process.

During the investigation:
Investigations have encompassed review of internal correspondence at MDPI, detailed information on the handling of peer-review, decision making and reviewer reports, plus external comments, blogs and websites. Based on our findings we feel satisfied that MDPI continue to meet the OASPA Membership Criteria.​
MDPI have been extremely cooperative throughout this process and have shared many documents and evidence of correspondence with the OASPA Membership Committee. We are grateful for their openness during this period.​
Which journals had problems? 10ish out of 399.

More troubles for MDPI:


I am still waiting for anything that supports that kosher butchery is faster in attaining unconsciousness than stunning.

2 Journals were questioned. The problem was identified as "content relevance" not accuuacy. They are concenred because the review process is quick, about 30 days. Which is great! That's it. Nothing-burger.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
This is interesting:


And this:


Editors of traditional, subscription-based journals say the peer-review system weeds out sloppy science. The traditional process isn't designed to detect fraud (referees rarely look at a researcher's raw data), and prestigious journals have unwittingly published bogus work. Last year, for example, Science retracted papers on embryonic stem cell research by a South Korean cloning scientist who admitted falsifying his results.​
The complain about MDPI, is the speed of their reveiw process. This is a stupid critisism. All they need to do is slow down? Do everything exactly the same, just do less and slower and people would be happy? That's dumb.

The traditional journals mak money, they're for profit ventures. MDPI is bigger, faster, and non-profit. Of course, the traditional ivory-tower journals are going to whine. They're being replaced by something better. They's had their own problems, compared to output MDPI is much much better for accuracy per research study published.

The best and only metric for reliability of scientific journals is impact factor. Its not perfect, but it shows that a journal is trusted. Guess which journal stands out on impact-factor? MDPI Journal "Animals". It is THE most impactful scientific journal of it's kind in that subject. Guess where the hormone study came from that brought the hormone levels I rought to this debate? MDPI Animals.

Done. Any attempt to undermine the legitmacy of this Journal needs actual criticisms about data, not about their ability to deliver better than the others. It is certainly better than a non-academic, non-peer reviewed, self-published, PDF from 1980, using unpublished data from the 1970s. And it's way better than a youtube video.

Sure, some people will not want open-access to research because then they're complaints "you didn't bring peer-reviewed research" get shut down. But those are just the words of bias and hypocisy.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Since you won't read, you'll be wait'n and wait'n.
When you refuse to provide evidence you tacitly admit that it will not support you. I provided more than enough evidence to refute your claims. Do you need more? You have not responded to any of it.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
This is interesting:


And this:


Editors of traditional, subscription-based journals say the peer-review system weeds out sloppy science. The traditional process isn't designed to detect fraud (referees rarely look at a researcher's raw data), and prestigious journals have unwittingly published bogus work. Last year, for example, Science retracted papers on embryonic stem cell research by a South Korean cloning scientist who admitted falsifying his results.​
The complain about MDPI, is the speed of their reveiw process. This is a stupid critisism. All they need to do is slow down? Do everything exactly the same, just do less and slower and people would be happy? That's dumb.

The traditional journals mak money, they're for profit ventures. MDPI is bigger, faster, and non-profit. Of course, the traditional ivory-tower journals are going to whine. They're being replaced by something better. They's had their own problems, compared to output MDPI is much much better for accuracy per research study published.

The best and only metric for reliability of scientific journals is impact factor. Its not perfect, but it shows that a journal is trusted. Guess which journal stands out on impact-factor? MDPI Journal "Animals". It is THE most impactful scientific journal of it's kind in that subject. Guess where the hormone study came from that brought the hormone levels I rought to this debate? MDPI Animals.

Done. Any attempt to undermine the legitmacy of this Journal needs actual criticisms about data, not about their ability to deliver better than the others. It is certainly better than a non-academic, non-peer reviewed, self-published, PDF from 1980, using unpublished data from the 1970s. And it's way better than a youtube video.

Sure, some people will not want open-access to research because then they're complaints "you didn't bring peer-reviewed research" get shut down. But those are just the words of bias and hypocisy.
MDPI is not "better". It is sloppy and inaccurate at times. That is why it has lost more and more credibility. And you still trust the Chinese when it comes to claims of being "non-profit". That is quite naive. And yes, I brought peer reviewed material again and again. One part of one source was from unpublished info. You still won't own up to the fact that your MDPII article foolishly used metrics that only applied to conscious animals. Stunning renders an animal unconscious. Those metrics would only apply if someone did not butcher the animal and was brought back to consciousness.

You can't handle the fact that instantaneous unconsciousness beats kosher slaughter. That is why you have to pretend that the videos that show without a doubt that you are wrong refute you. Now if you like I could show some stunning videos. It is a bit heart wrenching to see a huge steer drop like a bag of wet cement. But it is far less cruel than your chosen method.

It is why it is banned in much of Europe. It is why Muslims have seen the light and are more and more abandoning your cruel sort of butchery.

As to impact factor did you not see my latest article from Science? MDPI's impact factor is now "Zero".
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
When you refuse to provide evidence you tacitly admit that it will not support you. I provided more than enough evidence to refute your claims. Do you need more? You have not responded to any of it.

of course I have. I've addressed them all.

how about this? give me the reasons, in order, why you didn't read my post the first time, why you have refused to go look for pages at it everytime I've mentioned it, and why you are unable to go back in the thread right now and read the few sentences that answer the question.

if you can convince me that there's good reasons for it, i'll do you a favor and do the copy-paste for you.

otherwise, you're acting like a baby and you're looking like a jack-***. this pleases me.

MDPI is not "better".

Sure it is. The journal "animals" which contains the hormone reseach I'm citing is respected. And their peer-review process is open-knowledge. The review process for those old slow antique journals is a carefully guarded secret. They can't keep up and are going the way of the dinosaur.

It is sloppy and inaccurate at times.

Not the Journals I'm citing.

That is why it has lost more and more credibility.

Nope, it's regaining credibility.

And you still trust the Chinese when it comes to claims of being "non-profit". That is quite naive.

First of all, that's racist. Your bigorty has been noted. And... that's false. Hee. I love it when you're wrong. That was a paranoid crank claim by the librarian Jeffrey Beall. You just don't have any critical thinking skills do you? Let me help you. Verify those little thought bubbles that rise up into your brain-places. Um-Kay? They're based in Switzerland, not China. So you can check your racism at the door.

Screenshot_20230523_205312.jpg

And yes, I brought peer reviewed material again and again.

Nope. Post# to a relevant peer-reviewed anything. So, it's racism and dishonesty. Top marks for you. { sarcarsm }

One part of one source was from unpublished info.

What part? The whole paper was peer-reviewed. The data I copied and pasted is verifiable. Coming from reputible Journals. "MDPI Animals" and "Europe PMC" I brought links to the university website of the author. Everything is legit.

You still won't own up to the fact that your MDPII article foolishly used metrics that only applied to conscious animals. Stunning renders an animal unconscious. Those metrics would only apply if someone did not butcher the animal and was brought back to consciousness.

But since animal welfare is more than just their throat being slit, this is a good way to assess over-all humane treatment of the animal.

If you want to claim that these hormones are magically released even when the animal is not stressed and suffering while it is unconcious, then... ahem..

BRING SOME ACTUAL RESEARCH AND STOP MAKING UP STUFF.

Were you able to read that OK. I've said it multiple times, but you seem to be slow, or maybe intoxicated. Not sure.


You can't handle the fact that instantaneous unconsciousness beats kosher slaughter. That is why you have to pretend that the videos that show without a doubt that you are wrong refute you. Now if you like I could show some stunning videos. It is a bit heart wrenching to see a huge steer drop like a bag of wet cement. But it is far less cruel than your chosen method.

Nope. The data... CURRENT data says nopey-nope.

Remember way back when people looked around and said "The earth is flat. Look at that. I must be." Well. they were wrong, cause the eyes can be deceiving.

It is why it is banned in much of Europe. It is why Muslims have seen the light and are more and more abandoning your cruel sort of butchery.

Whatever, politicians aren't scientists. They do what's popular and will get them elected.

As to impact factor did you not see my latest article from Science? MDPI's impact factor is now "Zero".

You're still pretending that MDPI is A journal. And yes, I actually read your article. It doesn't say that. 2 journals, I think were removed. 2 out of 399.

Anyway. I love it when you're wrong. You're just wrong and wronger.

For the Journal Animals:


Screenshot_20230523_212400.jpg


Screenshot_20230523_212528.jpg

Screenshot_20230523_212541.jpg


For the Journal Processes:


Screenshot_20230523_212810.jpg


Screenshot_20230523_212915.jpg


That's not ZERO. And it's increasing. You're just making up stuff like a psychotic lunatic. This is not a creative writing thread. if you want to journal, there's a place for that.

Try to get some sleep. And maybe go talk to someone about the delusions?
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20230523_211713.jpg
    Screenshot_20230523_211713.jpg
    73.7 KB · Views: 42
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
of course I have. I've addressed them all.

how about this? give me the reasons, in order, why you didn't read my post the first time, why you have refused to go look for pages at it everytime I've mentioned it, and why you are unable to go back in the thread right now and read the few sentences that answer the question.

if you can convince me that there's good reasons for it, i'll do you a favor and do the copy-paste for you.

otherwise, you're acting like a baby and you're looking like a jack-***. this pleases me.



Sure it is. The journal "animals" which contains the hormone reseach I'm citing is respected. And their peer-review process is open-knowledge. The review process for those old slow antique journals is a carefully guarded secret. They can't keep up and are going the way of the dinosaur.



Not the Journals I'm citing.



Nope, it's regaining credibility.



First of all, that's racist. Your bigorty has been noted. And... that's false. Hee. I love it when you're wrong. That was a paranoid crank claim by the librarian Jeffrey Beall. You just don't have any critical thinking skills do you? Let me help you. Verify those little thought bubbles that rise up into your brain-places. Um-Kay? They're based in Switzerland, not China. So you can check your racism at the door.

View attachment 77491



Nope. Post# to a relevant peer-reviewed anything. So, it's racism and dishonesty. Top marks for you. { sarcarsm }



What part? The whole paper was peer-reviewed. The data I copied and pasted is verifiable. Coming from reputible Journals. "MDPI Animals" and "Europe PMC" I brought links to the university website of the author. Everything is legit.



But since animal welfare is more than just their throat being slit, this is a good way to assess over-all humane treatment of the animal.

If you want to claim that these hormones are magically released even when the animal is not stressed and suffering while it is unconcious, then... ahem..

BRING SOME ACTUAL RESEARCH AND STOP MAKING UP STUFF.

Were you able to read that OK. I've said it multiple times, but you seem to be slow, or maybe intoxicated. Not sure.




Nope. The data... CURRENT data says nopey-nope.

Remember way back when people looked around and said "The earth is flat. Look at that. I must be." Well. they were wrong, cause the eyes can be deceiving.



Whatever, politicians aren't scientists. They do what's popular and will get them elected.



You're still pretending that MDPI is A journal. And yes, I actually read your article. It doesn't say that. 2 journals, I think were removed. 2 out of 399.

Anyway. I love it when you're wrong. You're just wrong and wronger.

For the Journal Animals:


View attachment 77493

View attachment 77494

View attachment 77495


For the Journal Processes:


View attachment 77496

View attachment 77497


That's not ZERO. And it's increasing. You're just making up stuff like a psychotic lunatic. This is not a creative writing thread. if you want to journal, there's a place for that.

Try to get some sleep. And maybe go talk to someone about the delusions?
Sorry, but you still have not addressed the information from brain telemetry. I demonstrated that consciousness is lost instantly with a stun. Your system allows consciousness for ten seconds or even longer. That one fact means that your system is more cruel.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Sorry, but you still have not addressed the information from brain telemetry.

This the first time "brain telemetry" has been mentioned in this thread. And since you haven't brought any actual credible research. Your words have zero value.

Screenshot_20230524_081447.jpg

Screenshot_20230524_081503.jpg

I demonstrated that consciousness is lost instantly with a stun.

Nope. You've typed it, but have not demonstrated anything.

Your system allows consciousness for ten seconds or even longer.

It can, if done improperly. But there's good data that shows instantaneous loss of consciousness from immediate blood loss to the brain.

That one fact means that your system is more cruel.

It's not fact. It's opinion.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
This the first time "brain telemetry" has been mentioned in this thread. And since you haven't brought any actual credible research. Your words have zero value.

View attachment 77510

View attachment 77511



Nope. You've typed it, but have not demonstrated anything.



It can, if done improperly. But there's good data that shows instantaneous loss of consciousness from immediate blood loss to the brain.



It's not fact. It's opinion.
There are various ways of measuring brain function. An EEG is just one of them. That you do not understand basic terminology is not my problem. That more general term prevents nit picking on your part. And you still do not know how to use the function that allows you to search a phrase There was no need to look for that phrase. What you should have looked for in articles are various different ways that brain activity is measured. I did not want to limit myself to only EEG's.


You lost, but you simply refuse to acknowledge it. The sources, plural and peer reviewed, that I used demonstrated that inner brain function stops on impact. The cortex, the outer lining of the brain, shuts down later, but still much more quickly than with kosher slaughter, I am pretty sure that the cortex is not involved in conscious thought.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
There are various ways of measuring brain function. An EEG is just one of them. That you do not understand basic terminology is not my problem. That more general term prevents nit picking on your part. And you still do not know how to use the function that allows you to search a phrase There was no need to look for that phrase. What you should have looked for in articles are various different ways that brain activity is measured. I did not want to limit myself to only EEG's.

I'm not wasting my time with your babbling. No one else is going to dig into those articles to find the remote wafer think thread of relevance. I'm not going to either. I used the search function fine. This is the first time you brought it up. That's true. You're flipping and flopping like a dying fish. Keep going.

You lost, but you simply refuse to acknowledge it.

Says you. You've been wrong 7, 8 times, about so much. You don't even know which end is up. You don't check your facts. You made some racist bigotted comment about Chinese people. You believe crack claims from a librarian. You don't read, you don't understand. I don't care, I doubt anyone cares.

You claiming a victory or my defeat is nothing but an empty assertion. I brought real research, you brought blabbering.

The sources, plural and peer reviewed, that I used demonstrated that inner brain function stops on impact. The cortex, the outer lining of the brain, shuts down later, but still much more quickly than with kosher slaughter, I am pretty sure that the cortex is not involved in conscious thought.

Nope. You didn't bring squat. But you have no problem typing out those words.

I can play this too.

I brought multiple articles with multiple sources that showed that conventional slaughter is much much worse. And all of them were ordained by multiple peer-reviewed amaaaaaazing geniuses. You even admitted that I was right Why are you backpedaling. It's like you have a split personality.

LOLz. Bye-bye. Keep on flopp'n.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I'm not wasting my time with your babbling. No one else is going to dig into those articles to find the remote wafer think thread of relevance. I'm not going to either. I used the search function fine. This is the first time you brought it up. That's true. You're flipping and flopping like a dying fish. Keep going.



Says you. You've been wrong 7, 8 times, about so much. You don't even know which end is up. You don't check your facts. You made some racist bigotted comment about Chinese people. You believe crack claims from a librarian. You don't read, you don't understand. I don't care, I doubt anyone cares.

You claiming a victory or my defeat is nothing but an empty assertion. I brought real research, you brought blabbering.



Nope. You didn't bring squat. But you have no problem typing out those words.

I can play this too.

I brought multiple articles with multiple sources that showed that conventional slaughter is much much worse. And all of them were ordained by multiple peer-reviewed amaaaaaazing geniuses. You even admitted that I was right Why are you backpedaling. It's like you have a split personality.

LOLz. Bye-bye. Keep on flopp'n.
No, I have had one or two minor mistakes. You refuse to own up to your major ones. I am not the one flopping. I am not the one running away and not posting evidence that he claims to exist. For example you still have not acknowledge the error on relying on changes caused by the autonomous system. You do know that some of your reactions are not thought out, don't you? The stress factors that your article relied upon so heavily occur whether a being is conscious or not, just like breathing and digestion occurs whether one is conscious or not. They are indicative of damage to tissue, but not to pain if the animal is unconscious. Anesthesia works by separating the brain from the body in that sense. You do not feel the pain of surgery. though For example your blood pressure and your heart rate may increase during surgery. The anesthesiologist does more than just passing gas. Those systems still work even if you do not feel the pain:


Your behavior raised the question of why you invest so much into this immoral practice. As I have pointed out the Muslims have begun to move into the w twentieth century in this regard. They are beginning to see how their traditional halal butchery leaves quite a bit to be desired.

No one is saying that the total kosher butchery needs to be thrown away either. Just the practice of slicing without stunning. An instantaneous loss of consciousness beats along drawn out one every time.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
No, I have had one or two minor mistakes. You refuse to own up to your major ones. I am not the one flopping. I am not the one running away and not posting evidence that he claims to exist. For example you still have not acknowledge the error on relying on changes caused by the autonomous system. You do know that some of your reactions are not thought out, don't you? The stress factors that your article relied upon so heavily occur whether a being is conscious or not, just like breathing and digestion occurs whether one is conscious or not. They are indicative of damage to tissue, but not to pain if the animal is unconscious. Anesthesia works by separating the brain from the body in that sense. You do not feel the pain of surgery. though For example your blood pressure and your heart rate may increase during surgery. The anesthesiologist does more than just passing gas. Those systems still work even if you do not feel the pain:


Your behavior raised the question of why you invest so much into this immoral practice. As I have pointed out the Muslims have begun to move into the w twentieth century in this regard. They are beginning to see how their traditional halal butchery leaves quite a bit to be desired.

No one is saying that the total kosher butchery needs to be thrown away either. Just the practice of slicing without stunning. An instantaneous loss of consciousness beats along drawn out one every time.

LOL. I'm ignoring all the mumbo-jumbo, and focuing on the link you brought. That source has nothing to do with this. Hypertension? Pah-leaze. I don't feel pain when I'm unconscious. So? That doesn't mean that the stress hormone indicators are operating while I'm unconscious.

The research I brought is measuring hormones that indicate stress and suffering. That stress and suffering can occur ...ahem..

WHEN THE ANIMAL IS BEING STUNNED.

The only way to refute this is to show that the hormones are being produced inspite of being unconscious. Otherwise, those hormone indicators are valid when comparing conventional to Jewish ritual slaughter. Stunning the animal, ACCORDING TO ACTUAL MEASURED RESEARCH, is just as inhumane as slitting its throat, PROPERLY, and immediately removing the blood from the brain.

Here's my link refuting the hyper-tension article. It's equally relevant.

 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
LOL. I'm ignoring all the mumbo-jumbo, and focuing on the link you brought. That source has nothing to do with this. Hypertension? Pah-leaze. I don't feel pain when I'm unconscious. So? That doesn't mean that the stress hormone indicators are operating while I'm unconscious.

The research I brought is measuring hormones that indicate stress and suffering. That stress and suffering can occur ...ahem..

WHEN THE ANIMAL IS BEING STUNNED.

The only way to refute this is to show that the hormones are being produced inspite of being unconscious. Otherwise, those hormone indicators are valid when comparing conventional to Jewish ritual slaughter. Stunning the animal, ACCORDING TO ACTUAL MEASURED RESEARCH, is just as inhumane as slitting its throat, PROPERLY, and immediately removing the blood from the brain.

Here's my link refuting the hyper-tension article. It's equally relevant.

Wow! The desperation continues. It was just an example of how the autonomous system works whether one is conscious or not. So, yes, it does apply. I never said that it was the same autonomous reactions, it was merely an example. When you have to even try to deny related examples we know that even you know that you are wrong.

But I do find it amusing how you have to denigrate that which you do not understand.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Wow! The desperation continues. It was just an example of how the autonomous system works whether one is conscious or not. So, yes, it does apply. I never said that it was the same autonomous reactions, it was merely an example. When you have to even try to deny related examples we know that even you know that you are wrong.

But I do find it amusing how you have to denigrate that which you do not understand.

wowie, the animal maintains its autonomous functions.... like breathing. no **** sherlock.

try coming up with something relevant.

Stress and suffering can occur ...ahem..

WHEN THE ANIMAL IS BEING STUNNED.

The only way to refute this is to show that the hormones are being produced inspite of being forced into unconsciousness. Otherwise, those hormone indicators are valid when comparing conventional to Jewish ritual slaughter. Stunning the animal, ACCORDING TO ACTUAL MEASURED RESEARCH, is just as inhumane as slitting its throat, PROPERLY, and immediately removing the blood from the brain.

This ^^ is your challenge. Prepare yourself to see it repeatedly unless you can address it. Can you rise to meet this challenge?

Screenshot_20230524_105951.jpg
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
wowie, the animal maintains its autonomous functions.... like breathing. no **** sherlock.

try coming up with something relevant.

Stress and suffering can occur ...ahem..

WHEN THE ANIMAL IS BEING STUNNED.

The only way to refute this is to show that the hormones are being produced inspite of being unconscious. Otherwise, those hormone indicators are valid when comparing conventional to Jewish ritual slaughter. Stunning the animal, ACCORDING TO ACTUAL MEASURED RESEARCH, is just as inhumane as slitting its throat, PROPERLY, and immediately removing the blood from the brain.

This ^^ is your challenge. Prepare yourself to see it repeatedly unless you can address it. Can you rise to meet this challenge?

View attachment 77520
Holy crap! Are you being ignorant on purpose? Your source used stress indicators that are a result of the autonomous nervous system. They do not indicate cruelty. Cruelty comes from conscious pain. Surgery is not cruelty, it cause "pain" that is only sensed by the autonomous system. And no, the stress occurs AFTER THE ANIMAL IS STUNNED. Why is that so hard to understand? The bolt knocks it out. It is too quick of an action to even register as pain consciously.

Your system puts the animal through conscious pain. That is why it is immoral. That pain is not necessary. That pain also registers almost identical to that of stunning. Though measurably less those values were well within the margin of error for the values from cutting only. Do you not understand the difference between conscious and unconscious pain?
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Holy crap! Are you being ignorant on purpose?

Lol. You're the one who is making stuff up, repeatedly. Including the racist anti-Chinese bigotry. You do know that racist bigotry IS ignorance by defintion?

On the other hand if you are truly ignorant, you won't know that. Or much of anything else. Moving on....

Your source used stress indicators that are a result of the autonomous nervous system. They do not indicate cruelty. Cruelty comes from conscious pain. Surgery is not cruelty, it cause "pain" that is only sensed by the autonomous system.

Uh-huh... but when unconscious some autonomous faculties are supressed. That's ummmm, what it means.

And no, the stress occurs AFTER THE ANIMAL IS STUNNED.

That's not what the data shows.

Why is that so hard to understand?

I understand. I understand that you make big talkie but no do researchie.

The bolt knocks it out. It is too quick of an action to even register as pain consciously.

Yeah, right. A bolt slammed through the skull is painless. That's your guess. Your guesses have a track record of 0 out of 10 I think at this point.

Your system puts the animal through conscious pain.

But, but, YOU just said that if it was quick action, it wouldn't even register as pain. Here ya go... that argument gets the dunce cap.

Screenshot_20230524_120915.jpg


That is why it is immoral. That pain is not necessary.

Either way, there's pain and suffering. Ritual slaughter can be much better.

That pain also registers almost identical to that of stunning.

Research shows that ritual slaughter could be much less suffering.

Though measurably less those values were well within the margin of error for the values from cutting only. Do you not understand the difference between conscious and unconscious pain?

Sure. But while unconscousness is forced, the hypothalmus is suppressed. Meaning those hormones are suppressed. You keep pretending that this is like a surgery with anesthesia. If that's what you're imagining, the hormones are being supressed.


If something is stunned, it feels that stunning, and it might waken from the pain... then die. It might feel it and suffer and you'd never know.

( note: I keep bringing sources, and you don't. It's either laziness, weakness, or both )
 
Last edited:

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
the stress occurs AFTER THE ANIMAL IS STUNNED

The pattern of changes in EEG activity following captive bolt stunning, between and within captive bolt gun treatments groups, was not uniform (Fig. 1, Fig. 2). For all animals, there were periods of movement artefact in the EEG immediately after shooting. The duration of the initial period of movement artefact varied between the treatments, with cattle shot with the PCB having a mean initial duration of 2.3 ± 0.2 (range 1–5) seconds and NPCB 1.6 ± 0.4 (range 1–4) seconds, however the difference was not significant (p = .117). For both treatment groups, in most animals movement artefact was followed by transitional EEG, with further bursts of movement artefact and transitional EEG before changing into isoelectric waveforms.​
The EEG waveforms of successfully stunned bulls generally followed a pattern of transitional or HALF activity before becoming isoelectric.​

*shakes my head* Dude. They are suffering during the stunning. Details, details are important. Saying they're stunned ignores how they got that way. And if you *actually* read the research I just posted you'll see, this is not an error-free process. Yes, sometimes it takes 2 bolts. Sometimes, it simply doesn't work and they do for it.

It's better to leave this kind of work to a pro with a long sharp knife.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Lol. You're the one who is making stuff up, repeatedly. Including the racist anti-Chinese bigotry. You do know that racist bigotry IS ignorance by defintion?

On the other hand if you are truly ignorant, you won't know that. Or much of anything else. Moving on....



Uh-huh... but when unconscious some autonomous faculties are supressed. That's ummmm, what it means.



That's not what the data shows.



I understand. I understand that you make big talkie but no do researchie.



Yeah, right. A bolt slammed through the skull is painless. That's your guess. Your guesses have a track record of 0 out of 10 I think at this point.



But, but, YOU just said that if it was quick action, it wouldn't even register as pain. Here ya go... that argument gets the dunce cap.

View attachment 77525




Either way, there's pain and suffering. Ritual slaughter can be much better.



Research shows that ritual slaughter could be much less suffering.



Sure. But while unconscousness is forced, the hypothalmus is suppressed. Meaning those hormones are suppressed. You keep pretending that this is like a surgery with anesthesia. If that's what you're imagining, the hormones are being supressed.


If something is stunned, it feels that stunning, and it might waken from the pain... then die. It might feel it and suffer and you'd never know.

( note: I keep bringing sources, and you don't. It's either laziness, weakness, or both )
LOL! Oh my the rude ignorance and projection continues. Name calling and worse.

It is no my opinion that it is painless. It is also the claim of the sources that I linked.

All you can do is to make false claims and use personal attacks. My claims were supported. When iI ask for the particular data that would validate your claim all that you can do is to claim "I posted it". The fact is that you haven't. Now you are taking an analogy too far with surgery. Yes, anesthesia can lower the responses to stress. That was not the point. The point was that the body still reacts.

You are the most desperate person that I have seen in a long long time. Purposefully misunderstanding the arguments of others and then calling them a dunce only reflects poorly on you.
 
Top