Animal sacrifice: out of fashion

[Subduction Zone]

If you're being stupid, then, you're being stupid.

My claim is well supported. Your own sources prove you wrong. My sources support my conclusion. You attempted to undermine their credibility and failed. You failed and failed and failed.

View attachment 77915

View attachment 77917



Fact: 3000+ observations of Jewish ritual slaughter
Fact: 95% immediate unconsciousness
Fact: no reaction other than a small shudder
Fact: the cattle did not appear to notice their necks were being cut
Fact: this comes from your own source

The debate is over because of the facts.

Sorry, but you are only describing yourself. You lost all credibility. We were discussing beef slaughter, since most of the videos tend to be of that. I stated a fact, that unstunned slaughter is banned in Australia. You denied that and used a source that refuted you. You still can't deal with that fact.

And no, your sources, never refuted me. They tended to support me. You just ignore those facts and cherry pick the few that do. The videos, where you had to use bogus No True Scotsman fallacies to deal with, refute your claims as well.




You may be a Jew. That does not mean that you get to decide what is kosher slaughter for all Jews. If Jews in general, not me, and definitely not you either, are willing to call a process kosher, then that is the case, they are kosher. Your beef probably comes from a source that in a debate you would claim to fail the kosher laws. You see laws have to be made for the general case. When the pressure is on to turn out product at affordable costs some of the niceties are often ignored. Your own authors noted that was the case. I quoted from them. You merely denied them as usual.

 

[Rachel Rugelach]

You may be a Jew. That does not mean that you get to decide what is kosher slaughter for all Jews. If Jews in general, not me, and definitely not you either, are willing to call a process kosher, then that is the case, they are kosher.

"Jews in general" don't decide what is or is not kosher. Kosher certification agencies, which are under rabbinical supervision, decide that. There are numerous such agencies following scrupulous laws of kashrut, and you can read about them at this link: Kosher certification agency - Wikipedia

Apologies if this has already been mentioned in this thread, but I came in late on this and haven't really felt inclined to read all fourteen pages.

As for animal sacrifice... I acknowledge that it is the fervent hope of many Jews to see the Holy Temple of Jerusalem restored, but I do not favor the return of animal sacrifice (which would accompany that restoration). Quite frankly, I find the efforts of one particular farming corporation in Israel to breed the perfect sacrificial red heifer, in anticipation of the return of animal sacrifices, to be cringe-worthy. This is just my personal opinion.

 

[dybmh]

Sorry, but you are only describing yourself. You lost all credibility.

All relevant sources support me. You haven't brought a single thing that shows that Jewish ritual slaughter is inhumane.

We were discussing beef slaughter, since most of the videos tend to be of that.

My sources are discussing beef cattle.

You haven't brought any videos of Jewish ritual slaughter. You keep talking about it, but, youve said a lot, most of it is false. So, whatever you are watching is probably irrelevant. If you want to post a video, please put it in a spoiler, above the spoiler put the date, location, and name of the slaughter-house.

If you dont have that information, and you do not know what qualifies as Jewish ritual slaughter, then the videos dont mean anything.

I went a looked for videos myself, and found that there isn't good information about the videos on youtube. So, unless you can produce, you've got nothing.

I stated a fact, that unstunned slaughter is banned in Australia. You denied that and used a source that refuted you.

No, I showed that what you said was irrelevant and incomplete. They banned it, but permit Jewish ritual slaughter.

You still can't deal with that fact.

Um, the fact that Jewish ritual slaughter is an exception that is humane in spite of the lack of stunning? No, I've got that, and the evidence supports it.

And no, your sources, never refuted me. They tended to support me.

Nope. My source has measured data that shows the stress of the animals in Jewish ritual slaughter can be much better than sluaghter with stunning. It could be much worse.

It also shows that eeg data from ritual slaughter is consistent and comparable to to eeg data stuned slaughter.

You just ignore those facts and cherry pick the few that do.

Nope. Thats your imagination.

The videos, where you had to use bogus No True Scotsman fallacies to deal with, refute your claims as well.

Hello???? No videos were posted in this thread. I'm not changing the standards. You don't know them, that means you're arguing from ignorance.

You may be a Jew. That does not mean that you get to decide what is kosher slaughter for all Jews.

I'm not deciding. Of course, you won't accept any source that disagrees with you. And any set of rules I provide will be rejected. But, here is a source, at least it shows that I am not deciding.

Shechita - Kosherquest.org - Online Kashrus Information

One question often asked by people who are considering observing the laws of kashrus is, “Why does kosher meat have to cost so much?” We will attempt to answer this valid question by looking at the process of “shechita,” Jewish ritual slaughter. Ritual slaughter of animals differs in many ways...

kosherquest.org

Mashgiach - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

1) It needed supervision by a mashgiach
2) it needs a shochet
3) it needs a specific knife
4) the knife needs to be very sharp
5) it needs the neck thoroughly washed
6) the cut needs to be made in a specific location
7) the cut is inspected after to insure it was cut and not torn in anyway

Now, if you want to deny these specifications, and use someone elses, then you need to the name of the slaughter house and the agency which is giving it a kosher certification.

If Jews in general, not me, and definitely not you either, are willing to call a process kosher, then that is the case, they are kosher.

Nope, that's not how it works. But if that's how you wan to play it, you still need names of the slaughter house and the "Jews" who are calling it kosher.

Your beef probably comes from a source that in a debate you would claim to fail the kosher laws.

Sure, and that's a problem I need to deal with. It's not easy figuring out where meat is sourced and what happens to it when it is slaughtered. When I asked the Rabbi about it, all he said was it's supposed to be very good. This is why people go veggie. Not just Jews, but many people.

But that has nothing to do with the process itself. It has to do with oversight an monitoring.

You see laws have to be made for the general case. When the pressure is on to turn out product at affordable costs some of the niceties are often ignored. Your own authors noted that was the case. I quoted from them. You merely denied them as usual.

No, I didn't, and you didn't quote them saying that. If you want more oversight and monitoring, then it needs to be ALL slaughter houses. If you think Jewish ritual slaughter needs a special license, special permission, and additional monitoring with major penalities for non-compliance, that;s fine too.

But that has nothing to do with the process. Just like stunning, if it's done poorly in an inhumane manner, it's inhumane. A bad slaughter house is a bad slaughter house.

The stunning is uneeded, and the stunning has its own problems, and causes suffering. The bans are an over-reaction. If more monitoring is needed, it's needed for all slaughter-houses.

 

[Rachel Rugelach]

Just to add to @dybmh's post above, regarding the scrupulous care taken when it comes to the slaughter of animals in accordance with the requirements of kashrut, "The Magen Tzedek Commission has developed a food certification program that combines the rabbinic tradition of Torah with Jewish values of social justice, assuring consumers and retailers that kosher food products have been produced in keeping with exemplary Jewish ethics in the area of labor concerns, animal welfare, environmental impact, consumer issues and corporate integrity." (Click on linked quote to read more.)

I realize that, for those who choose not to eat meat, there will probably never be any acceptable form of animal slaughter, and I acknowledge that. I just want to say that Jews are not wicked for the way that we slaughter animals for food, and there is a great deal of concern among Jews to be as humane about it as one can possibly be.

 

[danieldemol]

All of that has become the minority position.

​

"The consensus around the classical documentary hypothesis has now collapsed. This was triggered in large part by the influential publications of John Van Seters, Hans Heinrich Schmid, and Rolf Rendtorff in the mid-1970s, who argued that J was to be dated no earlier than the time of the Babylonian captivity (597–539 BCE), and rejected the existence of a substantial E source. They also called into question the nature and extent of the three other sources.​

​

Documentary hypothesis - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

​

So, no one really knows who wrote the "Priestly" code, nor if it is even its own disitinct unit.

You appear to be misreading a generalised summary of a generalised overview of the entire old testament and trying to use it to deny that which is written explicitly in the article I provided about Leviticus. But if you read your own article properly you will note that it goes into some detail about which sources are doubted and which ones are not.

Here is what your own article has to say regarding the priestly source;
'Most scholars also agree that some form of Priestly source existed, although its extent, especially its end-point, is uncertain.[38]' So since your article does not go into detail of where the disputed endpoint is it would not be correct in my view to use it to attempt to discredit the explicit mention in the article on Leviticus of the Priestly source as the point where it becomes uncertain could well be after Leviticus for all we know.

You are assuming they didn't have other work in the temple. The temple was operating 24/7.

Seven eleven petrol stations also operate 24/7. Do you seriously think that means each individual worker is required to be there all the time? Perhaps you do not understand the concept of shiftwork

Clearly you don't know the bible story. Everyone else had land of their own.

You were talking about cities of their own, now you have shifted the goal posts to land, but it appears to me you are wrong either way;

'Numbers 35:1-8 relates God's command to Moses to establish 48 cities for the Levites, of which six would also function as Cities of Refuge to which manslayers could flee. Each settlement was to comprise a walled city and the common land around it for pasture, measured radially as one thousand cubits in each direction,[1] or as a square measuring two thousand cubits along each side.[2] The land for the cities was to be 'donated' by the host tribe [3] and was allocated to the Levites according to their tribal sub-divisions.'

Source: Levitical city - Wikipedia

Have you read the book of leviticus? Seriously, it's not a long read. You can even skim it. Look for the so-called "best parts". You keep saying this, but it doesn't match what's written. They get a portion. But it's not the best portion. It's the same portion everyone else gets.

You are correct on this point, it seems I mis-inferred from your justificfation of the priests as being harder workers etc an implied acceptance of the claim made by @Twilight Hue if I recall that the priests got the best portions. It looks to me now as though his claim is wrong.

You appear to have an anti-religion bias. I can put down my bias

So you claim, but you have yet to demonstrate that in my opinion

 

[WonderingWorrier]

the perfect sacrificial red heifer

I dont think there is any animal sacrifice in the bible. Seems to be a misunderstanding of the meaning of the words.

Like it says:
"To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the Lord: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats". Isaiah.


Maybe we are as the animals being sacrificed:
"I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts". Ecclesiastes.



Just like the sacrifice and the sprinkling of the blood seven times:
"And he shall take of the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it with his finger upon the mercy seat eastward; and before the mercy seat shall he sprinkle of the blood with his finger seven times". Leviticus.

We are as the same:
"Let his heart be changed from man's, and let a beast's heart be given unto him; and let seven times pass over him". Daniel



It seems there are no animals actually mentioned in the bible. They are symbols.

The cattle, goats, and sheep are as three different symbols of judgement.
"And as for you, O my flock, thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I judge between cattle and cattle, between the rams and the he goats". Ezekiel.


Just as red (scarlet), purple, and blue are also three different symbols of judgement.
"And of the blue, and purple, and scarlet, they made cloths of service, to do service in the holy place, and made the holy garments for Aaron; as the Lord commanded Moses". Exodus





So considering the red heifer:

"This is the ordinance of the law which the Lord hath commanded, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring thee a red heifer without spot, wherein is no blemish, and upon which never came yoke": Numbers.


The heifer is red because both symbols share the same low position.

Red - Purple - Blue
Cattle - Goat - Sheep


The heifer is red just as the sea is the red sea (which is at a lower position than the purple river).

Red - Purple - Blue
Cattle - Goat - Sheep
Sea - River - Stream

Red is the low, blue is the high, and purple is in the middle.
Purple is a blending of red and blue.

 

[YoursTrue]

All relevant sources support me. You haven't brought a single thing that shows that Jewish ritual slaughter is inhumane.



My sources are discussing beef cattle.

You haven't brought any videos of Jewish ritual slaughter. You keep talking about it, but, youve said a lot, most of it is false. So, whatever you are watching is probably irrelevant. If you want to post a video, please put it in a spoiler, above the spoiler put the date, location, and name of the slaughter-house.

If you dont have that information, and you do not know what qualifies as Jewish ritual slaughter, then the videos dont mean anything.

I went a looked for videos myself, and found that there isn't good information about the videos on youtube. So, unless you can produce, you've got nothing.



No, I showed that what you said was irrelevant and incomplete. They banned it, but permit Jewish ritual slaughter.



Um, the fact that Jewish ritual slaughter is an exception that is humane in spite of the lack of stunning? No, I've got that, and the evidence supports it.



Nope. My source has measured data that shows the stress of the animals in Jewish ritual slaughter can be much better than sluaghter with stunning. It could be much worse.

It also shows that eeg data from ritual slaughter is consistent and comparable to to eeg data stuned slaughter.



Nope. Thats your imagination.



Hello???? No videos were posted in this thread. I'm not changing the standards. You don't know them, that means you're arguing from ignorance.



I'm not deciding. Of course, you won't accept any source that disagrees with you. And any set of rules I provide will be rejected. But, here is a source, at least it shows that I am not deciding.

Shechita - Kosherquest.org - Online Kashrus Information

One question often asked by people who are considering observing the laws of kashrus is, “Why does kosher meat have to cost so much?” We will attempt to answer this valid question by looking at the process of “shechita,” Jewish ritual slaughter. Ritual slaughter of animals differs in many ways...

kosherquest.org

Mashgiach - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

1) It needed supervision by a mashgiach
2) it needs a shochet
3) it needs a specific knife
4) the knife needs to be very sharp
5) it needs the neck thoroughly washed
6) the cut needs to be made in a specific location
7) the cut is inspected after to insure it was cut and not torn in anyway

Now, if you want to deny these specifications, and use someone elses, then you need to the name of the slaughter house and the agency which is giving it a kosher certification.



Nope, that's not how it works. But if that's how you wan to play it, you still need names of the slaughter house and the "Jews" who are calling it kosher.



Sure, and that's a problem I need to deal with. It's not easy figuring out where meat is sourced and what happens to it when it is slaughtered. When I asked the Rabbi about it, all he said was it's supposed to be very good. This is why people go veggie. Not just Jews, but many people.

But that has nothing to do with the process itself. It has to do with oversight an monitoring.



No, I didn't, and you didn't quote them saying that. If you want more oversight and monitoring, then it needs to be ALL slaughter houses. If you think Jewish ritual slaughter needs a special license, special permission, and additional monitoring with major penalities for non-compliance, that;s fine too.

But that has nothing to do with the process. Just like stunning, if it's done poorly in an inhumane manner, it's inhumane. A bad slaughter house is a bad slaughter house.

The stunning is uneeded, and the stunning has its own problems, and causes suffering. The bans are an over-reaction. If more monitoring is needed, it's needed for all slaughter-houses.

Some time ago I spoke to a supervisor of a kosher cattle farm. Because I wanted to know about draining of blood. He was very nice and mentioned that while they are fastidious about the blood draining, he also mentioned that there are some markets that claim kosher meat and have the blood drained but the slaughter is less than merciful. Anyway, right now I'm not particularly concerned because I know that in the future God is going to make all things straight. (kosher in a sense?) God knows what's in the blood and He promises to do wonderful things in the future which I am looking forward to. Even a sparrow falls to the ground and the Almighty God knows this. So I believe God is concerned about this also.
Deuteronomy 12:23 - "Only make a point of not eating the blood, because the blood is the life, and you are not to eat the life with the flesh."

 

[YoursTrue]

I dont think there is any animal sacrifice in the bible. Seems to be a misunderstanding of the meaning of the words.

Like it says:
"To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the Lord: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats". Isaiah.


Maybe we are as the animals being sacrificed:
"I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts". Ecclesiastes.



Just like the sacrifice and the sprinkling of the blood seven times:
"And he shall take of the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it with his finger upon the mercy seat eastward; and before the mercy seat shall he sprinkle of the blood with his finger seven times". Leviticus.

We are as the same:
"Let his heart be changed from man's, and let a beast's heart be given unto him; and let seven times pass over him". Daniel



It seems there are no animals actually mentioned in the bible. They are symbols.

The cattle, goats, and sheep are as three different symbols of judgement.
"And as for you, O my flock, thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I judge between cattle and cattle, between the rams and the he goats". Ezekiel.


Just as red (scarlet), purple, and blue are also three different symbols of judgement.
"And of the blue, and purple, and scarlet, they made cloths of service, to do service in the holy place, and made the holy garments for Aaron; as the Lord commanded Moses". Exodus





So considering the red heifer:

"This is the ordinance of the law which the Lord hath commanded, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring thee a red heifer without spot, wherein is no blemish, and upon which never came yoke": Numbers.


The heifer is red because both symbols share the same low position.

Red - Purple - Blue
Cattle - Goat - Sheep


The heifer is red just as the sea is the red sea (which is at a lower position than the purple river).

Red - Purple - Blue
Cattle - Goat - Sheep
Sea - River - Stream

Red is the low, blue is the high, and purple is in the middle.
Purple is a blending of red and blue.

Yes, there is animal sacrifice in the Bible. Exodus chapter 24 is one place you can start reading about that.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

Yes, there is animal sacrifice in the Bible. Exodus chapter 24 is one place you can start reading about that.

There are laws in the bible concerning animals.

Like consider the law about cattle in the corn.

"For it is written in the law of Moses, thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?" Corinthians.


Is that law heard correctly? Is the corn heard?


"And the earth shall hear the corn, and the wine, and the oil; and they shall hear Jezreel". Hosea


Because there is cattle in the corn.

Cattle - Goat - Sheep
Corn - Oil - Wine


Corn is at the lowest position. Like the valley is at a lower level than the hill, or the sea is at a lower level than the river.

Cattle - Goat - Sheep
Corn - Oil - Wine
Valley - Hill - Mountain
Sea - River - Stream

The pastures are clothed with flocks; the valleys also are covered over with corn; they shout for joy, they also sing. Psalm

And Joseph gathered corn as the sand of the sea, very much, until he left numbering; for it was without number. Genesis




The three different levels is also the reason why the river is as oil, and the mountain flows with wine.


Then will I make their waters deep, and cause their rivers to run like oil, saith the Lord God. Ezekiel

Cattle - Goat - Sheep
Corn - Oil - Wine
Valley - Hill - Mountain
Sea - River - Stream


Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt.

Cattle - Goat - Sheep
Corn - Oil - Wine
Valley - Hill - Mountain
Sea - River - Stream


The difference between cattle, goats, and sheep is the exactly same difference between corn, oil, and wine.

 

[YoursTrue]

There are laws in the bible concerning animals.

Like consider the law about cattle in the corn.

"For it is written in the law of Moses, thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?" Corinthians.


Is that law heard correctly? Is the corn heard?


"And the earth shall hear the corn, and the wine, and the oil; and they shall hear Jezreel". Hosea


Because there is cattle in the corn.

Cattle - Goat - Sheep
Corn - Oil - Wine


Corn is at the lowest position. Like the valley is at a lower level than the hill, or the sea is at a lower level than the river.

Cattle - Goat - Sheep
Corn - Oil - Wine
Valley - Hill - Mountain
Sea - River - Stream

The pastures are clothed with flocks; the valleys also are covered over with corn; they shout for joy, they also sing. Psalm

And Joseph gathered corn as the sand of the sea, very much, until he left numbering; for it was without number. Genesis




The three different levels is also the reason why the river is as oil, and the mountain flows with wine.


Then will I make their waters deep, and cause their rivers to run like oil, saith the Lord God. Ezekiel

Cattle - Goat - Sheep
Corn - Oil - Wine
Valley - Hill - Mountain
Sea - River - Stream


Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt.

Cattle - Goat - Sheep
Corn - Oil - Wine
Valley - Hill - Mountain
Sea - River - Stream


The difference between cattle, goats, and sheep is the exactly same difference between corn, oil, and wine.

Again, there is definitely animal sacrifice as offerings in the Bible. Yes, agreed that allusions are sometimes used from sheep or goats to people, but there are descriptions of actual animal offerings to God.
Leviticus 3:1 is one scripture allowing us to know that animal sacrifice was authorized by God. It says, "And if his oblation be a sacrifice of peace offering, if he offer it of the herd; whether it be a male or female, he shall offer it without blemish before the LORD."(King James Version)

 

[WonderingWorrier]

Again, there is definitely animal sacrifice as offerings in the Bible. Yes, agreed that allusions are sometimes used from sheep or goats to people, but there are descriptions of actual animal offerings to God.
Leviticus 3:1 is one scripture allowing us to know that animal sacrifice was authorized by God. It says, "And if his oblation be a sacrifice of peace offering, if he offer it of the herd; whether it be a male or female, he shall offer it without blemish before the LORD."(King James Version)

Definitely? Maybe those actual descriptions are actually describing something else.
Like it speaks of the different inward parts of the animal.


Who hath put wisdom in the inward parts? or who hath given understanding to the heart? Job.


The spirit of man is the candle of the Lord, searching all the inward parts of the belly. Proverbs.

From men which are thy hand, O Lord, from men of the world, which have their portion in this life, and whose belly thou fillest with thy hid treasure: they are full of children, and leave the rest of their substance to their babes. Psalm.

But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. Jeremiah.

 

[Viker]

I haven't chimed in yet.

I'm not rigidly opposed to (death) sacrifice in general. I'm not a fervent advocate either.

My religion only requires and recommends living sacrifice. This can be by trickle of one's own blood or offering one's self in general. The point being one must be willing and remain alive to complete the given sacrificial rite. It requires legible and discernable consent and acknowledgement of intention from "the sacrifice". This excludes participation in a sacrificial ceremony from animals. There are rites which symbolize the old ways concerning human or animal sacrifice. Still, intent and consent are requisite from the, now symbolic, sacrifice. In an ancient sense, we would have possibly viewed animals differently and capable of consent. Not these days.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Jews in general" don't decide what is or is not kosher. Kosher certification agencies, which are under rabbinical supervision, decide that. There are numerous such agencies following scrupulous laws of kashrut, and you can read about them at this link: Kosher certification agency - Wikipedia

Apologies if this has already been mentioned in this thread, but I came in late on this and haven't really felt inclined to read all fourteen pages.

As for animal sacrifice... I acknowledge that it is the fervent hope of many Jews to see the Holy Temple of Jerusalem restored, but I do not favor the return of animal sacrifice (which would accompany that restoration). Quite frankly, I find the efforts of one particular farming corporation in Israel to breed the perfect sacrificial red heifer, in anticipation of the return of animal sacrifices, to be cringe-worthy. This is just my personal opinion.

The problem appears to be in the difference between what is certified and what is the final product. And @dybmh was shown to be wrong again and again, often with his own sources, but he would never own up to those facts. He cannot even debate properly so I am done with him until he learns how to debate without being excessively rude.

His own source showed that his version of kosher slaughter was banned in Australia, but he did not want to admit it. Slaughter without stunning is banned in Australia. There are still a few "kosher butchers" but for cattle they have to stun, and with sheep and goats they have to be ready to stun. He did not want to admit that. One of the major exporters of "kosher meat" from Uruguay, a major source for the US at least and probably Europe as well, does not follow those ideals. And even in the cases that do follow ideal kosher slaughter it is still more cruel than stunning. He had to base his claims on studies that were done based on autonomous systems. Those are systems that react whether a creature is conscious or not. He could never refute the fact that proper stunning , which occurs the vast majority of the time results in instant unconsciousness. Only underpowered pneumatic stunners sometimes do not result in a full stun. And even those are still arguably less cruel than slitting an animals throat. It still ahs a few seconds of pain and often panic.

No butcher wants their processes video taped, but it seems to me harder to find unsupervised videos of kosher slaughter than traditional slaughter.

Now we have not had any defenders of halal butchery here, there are not as many Muslim members. They seem to be concerned with the welfare of the animals as well. They may feel that the studies that were used against them were biased, They may have been. But they at least are beginning to realize that there is a better way to go. I gave examples of Muslim clerics reinterpreting their holy works so that it works with stunning.

 

[Rachel Rugelach]

The problem appears to be in the difference between what is certified and what is the final product. And @dybmh was shown to be wrong again and again, often with his own sources, but he would never own up to those facts. He cannot even debate properly so I am done with him until he learns how to debate without being excessively rude.

His own source showed that his version of kosher slaughter was banned in Australia, but he did not want to admit it. Slaughter without stunning is banned in Australia. There are still a few "kosher butchers" but for cattle they have to stun, and with sheep and goats they have to be ready to stun. He did not want to admit that. One of the major exporters of "kosher meat" from Uruguay, a major source for the US at least and probably Europe as well, does not follow those ideals. And even in the cases that do follow ideal kosher slaughter it is still more cruel than stunning. He had to base his claims on studies that were done based on autonomous systems. Those are systems that react whether a creature is conscious or not. He could never refute the fact that proper stunning , which occurs the vast majority of the time results in instant unconsciousness. Only underpowered pneumatic stunners sometimes do not result in a full stun. And even those are still arguably less cruel than slitting an animals throat. It still ahs a few seconds of pain and often panic.

No butcher wants their processes video taped, but it seems to me harder to find unsupervised videos of kosher slaughter than traditional slaughter.

Now we have not had any defenders of halal butchery here, there are not as many Muslim members. They seem to be concerned with the welfare of the animals as well. They may feel that the studies that were used against them were biased, They may have been. But they at least are beginning to realize that there is a better way to go. I gave examples of Muslim clerics reinterpreting their holy works so that it works with stunning.

I really haven't been following your debate with @dybmh but, from what I have seen of his postings on these forums in regard to Judaism, he knows whereof he speaks.

You wrote: "The problem appears to be in the difference between what is certified and what is the final product." I can tell you from experience here in New York that, on the few occasions that I'm aware of in which such a problem arose, those attempting to pass off their product as being kosher certified when, in fact, it was not, have faced legal prosecution.

You wrote: "His own source showed that his version of kosher slaughter was banned in Australia, but he did not want to admit it. Slaughter without stunning is banned in Australia." I am surprised that kosher slaughter might be banned in Australia, yet the practice of mulesing of sheep in Australia's wool industry is permitted. Mulesing is a practice that is utterly unacceptable in Judaism due its mutilation of a live animal. See Ethical Treatment of Animals in Judaism.

In fact, mulesing is an appropriate subject to include in this discussion, as young lambs are, in a sense, "sacrificed" to the profit-making concerns of the wool industry -- which finds it more expedient to continue this bloody practice of skinning the backsides of live lambs and then returning them in pain to their anxious mothers, than to stop breeding animals with excessive, wool-producing folds in their skin thereby making them vulnerable to blowfly.

My description of the practice of mulesing is not nearly as graphic as one can see for oneself through videos of this practice that have been posted on YouTube. I won't link to any of these videos because of how horrific they are.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I really haven't been following your debate with @dybmh but, from what I have seen of his postings on these forums in regard to Judaism, he knows whereof he speaks.

You wrote: "The problem appears to be in the difference between what is certified and what is the final product." I can tell you from experience here in New York that, on the few occasions that I'm aware of in which such a problem arose, those attempting to pass off their product as being kosher certified when, in fact, it was not, have faced legal prosecution.

You wrote: "His own source showed that his version of kosher slaughter was banned in Australia, but he did not want to admit it. Slaughter without stunning is banned in Australia." I am surprised that kosher slaughter might be banned in Australia, yet the practice of mulesing of sheep in Australia's wool industry is permitted. Mulesing is a practice that is utterly unacceptable in Judaism due its mutilation of a live animal. See Ethical Treatment of Animals in Judaism.

In fact, mulesing is an appropriate subject to include in this discussion, as young lambs are, in a sense, "sacrificed" to the profit-making concerns of the wool industry -- which finds it more expedient to continue this bloody practice of skinning the backsides of live lambs and then returning them in pain to their anxious mothers, than to stop breeding animals with excessive, wool-producing folds in their skin thereby making them vulnerable to blowfly.

My description of the practice of mulesing is not nearly as graphic as one can see for oneself through videos of this practice that have been posted on YouTube. I won't link to any of these videos because of how horrific they are.

I am pretty sure that he understands the Judaism part, But apply ones religion to reality often runs into problems. People want cheap beef. Slaughterhouses that move minimal product are going to be more expensive than those that can slaughter rapidly.

As to mulesing that appears to be a practice rather unique to Australia caused by a combination of the sort of sheep that they raise and the existence of blow flies. Blow flies will try to lay eggs near the rumps of sheep in areas where feces and urine combine on the wool. When the maggot hatch they feed on the lambs and sheep. Often leading to a slow very excruciating death. It is permitted in Australia because it is the more humane route to take.

The actual cure appears to be to shift away from the particular breed of sheep that they favor. Of course the reason that most farmers use that particular breed of sheep is that it produces so much ore wool than others. Many businesses have banned Australian wool as a result. A better solution would be to have ranchers certified as using breeds that do not need mulesng. That would give them the competitive edge that they need over their neighbors that produce more wool per sheep.

Mulesing - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Australian sheep blow fly (in fact an invasive species from South Africa) afflicts many sheep in Australia.[11] In the late 19th century merino sheep in Australia were crossbred with loose-skinned merino sheep from Vermont. This resulted in such a productive fleece that it formed wrinkles on the animal. The popularity of Merino wool in the 20th century led Australian sheep breeders to continue selecting for the thickest possible fleeces on their sheep. This lucrative trait often meant that the thick, wrinkled wool on the sheep's rear readily attracted and held dirt and feces. This collection of unsanitary material as well as the skin ulcers it sometimes caused are very attractive to gravid female blowflies. Female blow flies seek out sheep with wounds and soiled wool to lay their eggs. Once the maggots hatch they gravitate to open wounds if any are present. This is flystrike, a type of myiasis. Flystrike, also called breechstrike, often leads to systemic secondary infections and death.

What is the RSPCA’s view on mulesing and flystrike prevention in sheep? – RSPCA Knowledgebase

The RSPCA believes that it is unacceptable to continue to breed sheep that are susceptible to flystrike and therefore require an ongoing need for mulesing or other painful procedures to manage flystrike risk.

It appears that there is a "easy" fix for the problem, but it will have to be done over the protests of farmers that obviously prefer the much more lucrative, but flystrike ridden breed of merino sheep that they use today.

 

[Rachel Rugelach]

I am pretty sure that he understands the Judaism part, But apply ones religion to reality often runs into problems. People want cheap beef. Slaughterhouses that move minimal product are going to be more expensive than those that can slaughter rapidly.

As any observant Jew can tell you from shopping experience, kosher cuts of meat that one purchases from a kosher supermarket (I like to shop at Gourmet Glatt in Cedarhurst, even though it's a long drive for me) are more expensive than the non-kosher cuts of meat one generally finds in national chain supermarkets. Yes, the expense can be a problem, but those who want the assurance of kosher certification will deal with it. And, as I mentioned in my previous post, New York State Law provides strict penalties (both criminal and civil) for anyone who attempts to commit fraud by falsely claiming that their product is kosher-certified. I don't know whether other states in the U.S. have similar laws, but we do have a lot of Jewish people (like me) here in New York, so cases of kosher fraud are also considered to be cases of consumer fraud.

Thank you for your in-depth information on mulesing. I was aware of this, as well as the efforts of humane societies to induce sheep farmers in Australia to find alternative methods -- in particular, the stopping of deliberately breeding sheep to genetically have excessive folds of skin that make them particularly vulnerable to flystrike.

 

[dybmh]

His own source showed that his version of kosher slaughter was banned in Australia, but he did not want to admit it.

No it doesn't. And you ASSUMED that the ban didn't have an exception, when a simple tippy-tap on the keyboard would have shown otherwise.

You have proven yet again, that you do not read, nor research, and if you do, you do not understand. The source I brought confirms there is a legal exemption for ritual Jewish slaughter which means it is not stunned prior to slitting it's throat.

This can be further confirmed, by, ya know, going to the Australian governments website:

Australian Standards and Guidelines

www.primesafe.vic.gov.au

And then locating the proper policy definition. It's the first in the list. From there, the exemption is defined.

Yes, they need to be ready to stun, after, but if the animal suffers and isn't instantaneously unconscious, it isn't kosher anyway. Something went wrong with the cut. And if something goes wrong, the animal is supposed to be removed and allocated as non-kosher meat.

And @dybmh was shown to be wrong again and again, often with his own sources,

No I wasn't. I was right the entire time. There's academic sources studying hormone levels. Those agree with what I'm saying. There's academic sources measuring brain activity. Those agree with what I'm saying. Inspection by a well known animal rights activist of over 3000+ slaughters in ( I think ) 3 different kosher slaughter-houses showed 98% perfect results, immediate unconsciousness, the animal's reaction was nothing more than a small shudder and did not appear to know that its neck was slit.

All of that is FACT. And you have brought nothing to refute any of it. Just claims. Irrevelant data about hypertension. And assumptions... so many assumptions. You don't know HOW to identify Jewish ritual slaughter, so you are easily fooled by youtube videos.

But, most important, you cannot bring those videos without exposing your ignorance, lack of attention to detail, and faith in some random youtubes that don't give the location, date, and name of the slaughter-house being observed.

One of the major exporters of "kosher meat" from Uruguay, a major source for the US at least and probably Europe as well, does not follow those ideals.

You don't know that. You have been repeatedly making these claims. But you don't have any evidence of what happens currently in a kosher slaughter house in Uruguay.

But yes, there are varying standards of what some people consider kosher. My kosher meat is labeled OU, and OU has revoked shackle-and-hoist. It took a while, but it happened.

He had to base his claims on studies that were done based on autonomous systems.

No, that is a part of it. Something like 33%. 1 part of three. The most valuable info comes from the animal rights community because they have the bias against ritual slaughter but considers it humane inspite of the bias.

Even so, this autonomous rebuttal is nothing. It's a big "so what"? The stunning involves sending a bolt through the animals skull. That causes suffering BEFORE unconscious. Just as much if not more than a proper Jewish slaughter. There's other reasons this is a "so what", but that's enough. You're whole argument is based on assumptions and lack of attention to detail.

He could never refute the fact that proper stunning , which occurs the vast majority of the time results in instant unconsciousness.

That doesn't need refuting because RESEARCH SHOWS the same is accomplished with Jewish ritual slaughter.

YOU have not been able to refute that the animal suffers as the bolt is going through their skull and brain BEFORE they are unconscious.

And even those are still arguably less cruel than slitting an animals throat.

Nope. That is not what the data shows. The data shows that the proper knife and proper method is better.

No butcher wants their processes video taped, but it seems to me harder to find unsupervised videos of kosher slaughter than traditional slaughter.

So..... it sounds like you found kosher slaughter-house videos, but you're not bringing them because they prove you wrong. And all you have is.... "But I can't find many videos so there MUST be a problem." Nope. There's simply much-much less of these slaughter houses. So the quantity of videos you'll find will naturally be much-much less.

It's a simple correlation.

What you keep missing is the volume of observations made by the animal rights activist. 3000+ observations, 98% success cannot be faked. That kind of consistency means the method works. And observing 3 different slaughter house shows that the method is not unique to the one individual or slaughter house.

Now we have not had any defenders of halal butchery here, there are not as many Muslim members

well, we don't have many active Muslim members anymore. And the topic is Jewish ritual slaughter. And their method is completely different, much less restrictive on what and how they do it.

The source I brought, which you ignored, observed them hacking repeatedly at the neck of the animal. That's like night and day compared to Jewish ritual slaughter. AND your own sources ignored the difference, made claims about Jewish ritual slaughter from observing two Halal slaughter houses.

Again, this shows you don't check your own sources for accuracy. Details... details are the difference between an animal suffering or not. Details are the difference between making a true claim and a false assumption. You just can't get the details right, and you just keep making false assumptions.

 

[dybmh]

apply ones religion to reality often runs into problems.

Just flip that onto yourself, your own beliefs and FAITH in your assumptions, and start actually researching, reading, and understanding the details, and you'll learn a lot.

The reality is shackle-and-hoist is the the cruelty. The process was considered kosher, but now it isn't. They were wrong to consider it kosher, and now that has been corrected. But it has NOTHING to so with stunning.

Better oversight is a great idea. But it MUST be for all slaughter-houses.

 

[Rachel Rugelach]

@Subduction Zone, I don't understand what the confusion is. I've checked out the same sources that @dybmh provided (both governmental and Australia's Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) and they confirm that both halal slaughter (under Islam) and kosher slaughter (under Judaism) are permitted. Stunning the animal is not a requirement for either method in Australia.

As for the higher price for kosher-certified meat that I mentioned in my previous post... Perhaps that's a good thing. I find myself consuming less meat for that very reason. Less consumption of meat by more people can have positive effects on the overall environment, as well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As any observant Jew can tell you from shopping experience, kosher cuts of meat that one purchases from a kosher supermarket (I like to shop at Gourmet Glatt in Cedarhurst, even though it's a long drive for me) are more expensive than the non-kosher cuts of meat one generally finds in national chain supermarkets. Yes, the expense can be a problem, but those who want the assurance of kosher certification will deal with it. And, as I mentioned in my previous post, New York State Law provides strict penalties (both criminal and civil) for anyone who attempts to commit fraud by falsely claiming that their product is kosher-certified. I don't know whether other states in the U.S. have similar laws, but we do have a lot of Jewish people (like me) here in New York, so cases of kosher fraud are also considered to be cases of consumer fraud.

Thank you for your in-depth information on mulesing. I was aware of this, as well as the efforts of humane societies to induce sheep farmers in Australia to find alternative methods -- in particular, the stopping of deliberately breeding sheep to genetically have excessive folds of skin that make them particularly vulnerable to flystrike.

Yes, they are more expensive. I never denied that. But it appears that they would be even more expensive if they followed true kosher standards. My opponent tried to use a No True Scotsman claim. But the problem with that is that it puts the burden of proof upon him, and he never supported that. He would have to show that all kosher butchers followed those standards, where videos of suppliers of kosher beef showed that they do not.