Animal sacrifice: out of fashion

[Rachel Rugelach]

@dybmh @Subduction Zone I have no idea how you guys are still going after almost a month! I've been watching this whole time and only just realized how long it's been...

It has been said that debate is pointless when one person thinks it is more important to win than to comprehend.

I think that, at this point, it would behoove both @Subduction Zone and @dybmh to present their closing statement (refraining from any disparagement of or rudeness toward each other) and then have done with this. After the closing statement, there is no need for further response from either.

This is only my suggestion to preserve peace and dignity.

 

[dybmh]

@dybmh @Subduction Zone I have no idea how you guys are still going after almost a month! I've been watching this whole time and only just realized how long it's been...

The debate is actually over. I'm just making sure that SubD doesn't post false claims and assumptions unchallenged.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It has been said that debate is pointless when one person thinks it is more important to win than to comprehend.

I think that, at this point, it would behoove both @Subduction Zone and @dybmh to present their closing statement (refraining from any disparagement of or rudeness toward each other) and then have done with this. After the closing statement, there is no need for further response from either.

This is only my suggestion to preserve peace and dignity.

My goal is to minimize the pain that animals undergo in the slaughtering process. But I am not a fanatic. Australia has a reasonable compromise. They cut.l allow the ritual sacrifice of kosher butchery, but for cattle their policy, which is the interpretation of law, demands stunning immediately after the cut. That is supported by the 2020 interpretation of the 2011 law. They gave the reason that the standard for cattle is an immediate post slice cut. They do not immediately pass out from it, taking up to two minutes to die. Letting a conscious animal slowly bleed to death in that fashion is immoral. When better methods are available it is a clear violation of the spirit of the kosher laws. For sheep and goats if appears that they are also in position to be stunned if they do not immediately pass out. From a humane point of view this allows the benefits of both systems.

The claims of defenders of kosher slaughter only cannot refute the fact that proper stunning results in instantaneous unconsciousness. Proper kosher slaughter does not guarantee that. Relying on chemicals from autonomous reactions to indicate pain is highly misleading. Those reactions occur whether the animal is conscious or not. They are indicative of pain only if the animal regains consciousness, and that does not occur in a slaughterhouse. Once stunned their throats are quickly cut. The first requirement for an animal to be in pain is consciousness.

Lastly, kosher butchery does affect non-Jews. Something that I just learned yesterday. Without rather special treatment roughly half of a cow is not kosher. For unexplained reasons only the front half is kosher. Unless they go through a process to at least remove the sciatic nerve. Rather than do that many kosher slaughterhouses sell the back half of a cow to non-kosher shops. I personally don't want to eat beef that was put through more pain than necessary.

Any questions?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The debate is actually over. I'm just making sure that SubD doesn't post false claims and assumptions unchallenged.

There you go again. Just because you did not understand an article does not others posted false claims.

 

[dybmh]

There you go hack to your old mistakes. You don't get to make demands until you clean up your debating style.

Sure I do. And your refusal to produce is nothing. Anyone can research it and see there is NO info on where the video comes from, when it was recorded, or the name of the slaughterhouse.

It could literally come from anyone, from anywhere, and th assumption that's it's a kosher slaughterhouse is basis.

You're simply making another in a long list of failed assumptions.

The RSPCA is not the government, but they are far more likely to understand how the laws of Australia are interpreted than you or I.

No, what they're saying is contradicted by the actual written policy on the actual government website.
No, the document they are claiming to quote is nowhere to be found.
No, the links at the bottom for more information on the Austalian standards are broken leading nowhere.

They refer to that law and are aware of it.

No, what they're saying is contradicted by the actual written policy on the actual government website.
No, the document they are claiming to quote is nowhere to be found.
No, the links at the bottom for more information on the Austalian standards are broken leading nowhere.

They explain why cattle are always stunned after the cut. Did you forget that already? That is why the policy, which is how laws are interpreted, is to always stun cattle after the cut.

No, what they're saying is contradicted by the actual written policy on the actual government website.
No, the document they are claiming to quote is nowhere to be found.
No, the links at the bottom for more information on the Austalian standards are broken leading nowhere.

The method described is precisely what Dr. Grandin has recommended which has observed 3000+ kosher slaughters ( including cows ) with a 95% success rate of immediate unconsciousness from jewish ritual slaughter.

 

[dybmh]

but for cattle their policy, which is the interpretation of law, demands stunning immediately after the cut.

No, it doesn't, youre using an unreliable source. The Australian government website has updated info.

Your source quotes an unverifiable policy from 2004.
The links at the bottom of your source offering more info on the Austrailin policy are broken and go no where:

That is supported by the 2020 interpretation of the 2011 law.

Nope... it's quoting a document from 2004:

They do not immediately pass out from it, taking up to two minutes to die.

Yes they do immediately pass out.

Pros and cons of different stunning methods from a Halal perspective: a review

There has always been a debate about the acceptability of stunning methods for preparing Halal slaughtered meat. Throughout the last few decades, stunning methods have become acceptable for Halal slaughtering due to an increasing majority of Muslim countries ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Letting a conscious animal slowly bleed to death in that fashion is immoral.

Since that isn't happening in Jewish ritual slaughter, there's nothing to complain about.

When better methods are available it is a clear violation of the spirit of the kosher laws

There isn't a better method. Data has been brought showing this.

Hormone levels
EEG data
3000+ observations by animal rights activist Dr. Grandin

The claims of defenders of kosher slaughter only cannot refute the fact that proper stunning results in instantaneous unconsciousness.

Critics of kosher slaughter cannot refute the fact that proper jewish ritual slaughter results in instantaneous unconsciousness.

Proper kosher slaughter does not guarantee that.

95% success rate. It's as good as stunning.

Relying on chemicals from autonomous reactions to indicate pain is highly misleading.

Who's relying on it? Not me. It's an indicator which supports the others. And there's no reason to ignore it.

 

[dybmh]

There you go again. Just because you did not understand an article does not others posted false claims.

I understand:

what they're saying is contradicted by the actual written policy on the actual government website.
the document they are claiming to quote is nowhere to be found.
the links at the bottom for more information on the Austalian standards are broken leading nowhere.

The method described is precisely what Dr. Grandin has recommended which has observed 3000+ kosher slaughters ( including cows ) with a 95% success rate of immediate unconsciousness from jewish ritual slaughter.

I understand:

The video you posted has no data to confirm it is actually from a kosher slaugterhouse

I understand you ignore the overwhelming evidence that jewish ritual slaughter renders the COW immediately unconscious.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, it doesn't, youre using an unreliable source. The Australian government website has updated info.

Your source quotes an unverifiable policy from 2004.
The links at the bottom of your source offering more info on the Austrailin policy are broken and go no where:

View attachment 78627

View attachment 78628


Nope... it's quoting a document from 2004:

View attachment 78629




Yes they do immediately pass out.

Pros and cons of different stunning methods from a Halal perspective: a review

There has always been a debate about the acceptability of stunning methods for preparing Halal slaughtered meat. Throughout the last few decades, stunning methods have become acceptable for Halal slaughtering due to an increasing majority of Muslim countries ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

View attachment 78631



Since that isn't happening in Jewish ritual slaughter, there's nothing to complain about.



There isn't a better method. Data has been brought showing this.

Hormone levels
EEG data
3000+ observations by animal rights activist Dr. Grandin



Critics of kosher slaughter cannot refute the fact that proper jewish ritual slaughter results in instantaneous unconsciousness.



98% success rate. It's as good as stunning.



Who's relying on it? Not me. It's an indicator which supports the others. And there's no reason to ignore it.

You still don't know how to debate. Since you insist on using a Gish Gallop one fact will refute your entire post. The source that I used for my claim is much more recent than the law itself. The source that I used was dated 2020. That indicates that it reflects the current government interpretation of that law. It is amazing how you think that others are arrogant when they discuss kosher laws, but yet you exhibit far worse arrogance when you interpret the laws of other countries. Once more, do you need the source? You can check its date yourself.

EDIT: And I can't help myself. Your claims about hormone levels was refuted. Yes, they are elevated, but those are a result of the autonomous system. They occur whether an animal is conscious or not If the animal is unconscious and never regains consciousness it never feels the pain from that. Have you ever had surgery of any sort where you were unconscious? Do you remember the pain of the surgery/ The site will be sore, but you never experienced the pain of the knife cutting into you. At least no consciously.

 

[dybmh]

You still don't know how to debate. Since you insist on using a Gish Gallop one fact will refute your entire post. The source that I used for my claim is much more recent than the law itself.

No, it's quoting a 2004 document which is not on the government website, and the links to the standards at the bottom are broken.

The source that I used was dated 2020. That indicates that it reflects the current government interpretation of that law.

No, it claims it does. But since the claims turn out to be false.... of course you believe them anyway.

It is amazing how you think that others are arrogant when they discuss kosher laws, but yet you exhibit far worse arrogance when you interpret the laws of other countries. Once more, do you need the source? You can check its date yourself.

Here's the source you brought, and here's the date: 2004.

Here's a list of the acutal government policies. The arrow is pointing to the one which gives the current actual policy. Notice the date is 2007. Notice the 2004 document is missing.

EDIT: And I can't help myself. Your claims about hormone levels was refuted. Yes, they are elevated, but those are a result of the autonomous system.

No it's not. The bolt is slammed through it's skull BEFORE it is unconscious.

They occur whether an animal is conscious or not If the animal is unconscious and never regains consciousness it never feels the pain from that. Have you ever had surgery of any sort where you were unconscious? Do you remember the pain of the surgery/ The site will be sore, but you never experienced the pain of the knife cutting into you. At least no consciously.

The hormone levels concur with the other data I brought.

Hormone levels agree with the EEG data and both agree with onsite 3000+ observations, for 3 different kosher slaughter houses. 95% immediate unconsciousness. No reaction except for a small shudder. The cows did not appear to have noticed their necks were being slit.

So, you can argue about this one aspect of the data. But since it is consistent with other findings, and the observations of a known animal rights activist, Dr. Granding, then those arguments are just nibbles of nothing. The animal rights activist has incentive and motive to discouage the practice. But endorses it anyway. That is STRONG evidence. And you can't refute it.

Pros and cons of different stunning methods from a Halal perspective: a review

There has always been a debate about the acceptability of stunning methods for preparing Halal slaughtered meat. Throughout the last few decades, stunning methods have become acceptable for Halal slaughtering due to an increasing majority of Muslim countries ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you want to have a discussion you need to limit yourself to one point at a time. Gish Gallops are never valid ways to debate.​

​

​

Oh, and excessive Green Ink is a sign of mental instability:​

​

Green ink

Green ink is a British journalistic term for the frothing of lunatics.[1][2][3] Back when letters to news outlets were produced in an archaic medium based on materials known as "paper" and "ink", the nutters would supposedly always write their IMPORTANT INFORMATION in green.

rationalwiki.org

 

[dybmh]

If you want to have a discussion you need to limit yourself to one point at a time. Gish Gallops are never valid ways to debate.​

No I don't need to follow your rules. If that's what you want, then make 1 claim at a time. You can't just pile on false+false+false+ignorance+false+ignorance and then object when each of those get refuted.

Oh, and excessive Green Ink is a sign of mental instability:​

​

Green ink

Green ink is a British journalistic term for the frothing of lunatics.[1][2][3] Back when letters to news outlets were produced in an archaic medium based on materials known as "paper" and "ink", the nutters would supposedly always write their IMPORTANT INFORMATION in green.

rationalwiki.org

There's not single bit of green on the page.

You seem to need to big bold arrows and boxes and stuff. So that's what you're getting in RED.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No I don't need to follow your rules. If that's what you want, then make 1 claim at a time. You can't just pile on false+false+false+ignorance+false+ignorance and then object when each of those get refuted.



There's not single bit of green on the page.

You seem to need to big bold arrows and boxes and stuff. So that's what you're getting in RED.

Oh my. Read the linked article. Your posts are loaded with "Green Ink".

And no, your Green Ink is merely a distraction where you quote parts of articles that you do not understand or purposefully ignore the parts that refute your claims. For example the requirement for stunning after the cut is in the law that you site. You just do not understand it. Here is a far more detailed article for you:

A Review of Legal Regulation of Religious Slaughter in Australia: Failure to Regulate or a Regulatory Fail?

Religious slaughter has recently attracted public attention as a result of media portrayal of several high-profile Australian and international events. The requirements of domestic religious slaughter practice, including animal welfare provisions, appear ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

As to where the requirement is it is here:

"
7.12 (1) This provision only applies to animals killed under an approved arrangement that provides for their ritual slaughter involving sticking without prior stunning.

(2) An animal that is stuck without first being stunned and is not rendered unconscious as part of its ritual slaughter is stunned without delay after it is stuck to ensure it is rendered unconscious."

Cattle are not made unconscious immediately by the cut. They are conscious for up to two minutes. They have a different blood systems than other ruminants that causes them to retain consciousness longer. The only way to guarantee "(2) An animal that is stuck without first being stunned and is not rendered unconscious as part of its ritual slaughter is stunned without delay after it is stuck to ensure it is rendered unconscious" is to stun cattle immediately after being cut.

Now the question is why do you oppose these more humane methods? Your rather ignorant claim about a bolt slamming into the brain ignores the fact that a bolt slamming into a brain produces instant unconsciousness. Problems arise with non-penetrative stunning. That method does require more skill to be effective.

So, why do you oppose stunning after the cut?

 

[dybmh]

Oh my. Read the linked article. Your posts are loaded with "Green Ink".

The linked article is a research study showing that 3000+ observed jewish ritual slaughters had a 95% success rate of immediate unconsciousness, and that the animal, cows, did not react other than a small shudder. They did not appear to know their necks were being cut.

That's the link you brought below.

And no, your Green Ink is merely a distraction where you quote parts of articles that you do not understand or purposefully ignore the parts that refute your claims. For example the requirement for stunning after the cut is in the law that you site. You just do not understand it. Here is a far more detailed article for you:

No, it' not. It's a requirement IF the animal is not rendered unconscious AS PART OF THE RITUAL SLAUGHTER.

A Review of Legal Regulation of Religious Slaughter in Australia: Failure to Regulate or a Regulatory Fail?

Religious slaughter has recently attracted public attention as a result of media portrayal of several high-profile Australian and international events. The requirements of domestic religious slaughter practice, including animal welfare provisions, appear ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Wrong link.

As to where the requirement is it is here:

No, it's not. What's listed is a conditional.

7.12 (1) This provision only applies to animals killed under an approved arrangement that provides for their ritual slaughter involving sticking without prior stunning.

(2) An animal that is stuck without first being stunned and is not rendered unconscious as part of its ritual slaughter is stunned without delay after it is stuck to ensure it is rendered unconscious."

There it is. Clear as day.

Cattle are not made unconscious immediately by the cut. They are conscious for up to two minutes.

Not in jewish ritual slaughter they aren't.

They have a different blood systems than other ruminants that causes them to retain consciousness longer.

That's not what the research shows.

The only way to guarantee "(2) An animal that is stuck without first being stunned and is not rendered unconscious as part of its ritual slaughter is stunned without delay after it is stuck to ensure it is rendered unconscious" is to stun cattle immediately after being cut.

Not true.

It's in the link you provided above.

Pros and cons of different stunning methods from a Halal perspective: a review

There has always been a debate about the acceptability of stunning methods for preparing Halal slaughtered meat. Throughout the last few decades, stunning methods have become acceptable for Halal slaughtering due to an increasing majority of Muslim countries ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Now the question is why do you oppose these more humane methods?

Jewish ritual slaughter is AT LEAST as humane as the other methods.

Your rather ignorant claim about a bolt slamming into the brain ignores the fact that a bolt slamming into a brain produces instant unconsciousness.

The bolt slams through the skull... THEN it becomes unconscious.

Problems arise with non-penetrative stunning. That method does require more skill to be effective.

Both require precision. Both methods of stunning involve suffering.

So, why do you oppose stunning after the cut?

I don't. If there is a failed slaughter, please do stun it. But if it can be done painlessly and without the animal knowing its neck is slit, and the unconcsiousness is immediate as is shown in the link and screenshot above. There's no reason to cause more suffering in the effort to avoid suffering.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The linked article is a research study showing that 3000+ observed jewish ritual slaughters had a 95% success rate of immediate unconsciousness, and that the animal, cows, did not react other than a small shudder. They did not appear to know their necks were being cut.

That's the link you brought below.



No, it' not. It's a requirement IF the animal is not rendered unconscious AS PART OF THE RITUAL SLAUGHTER.



Wrong link.



No, it's not. What's listed is a conditional.



There it is. Clear as day.




Not in jewish ritual slaughter they aren't.



That's not what the research shows.



Not true.

It's in the link you provided above.

Pros and cons of different stunning methods from a Halal perspective: a review

There has always been a debate about the acceptability of stunning methods for preparing Halal slaughtered meat. Throughout the last few decades, stunning methods have become acceptable for Halal slaughtering due to an increasing majority of Muslim countries ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

View attachment 78640




Jewish ritual slaughter is AT LEAST as humane as the other methods.



The bolt slams through the skull... THEN it becomes unconscious.



Both require precision. Both methods of stunning involve suffering.



I don't. If there is a failed slaughter, please do stun it. But if it can be done painlessly and without the animal knowing its neck is slit, and the unconcsiousness is immediate as is shown in the link and screenshot above. There's no reason to cause more suffering in the effort to avoid suffering.

Your inability to argue properly is rather amusing it is why I keep coming back to see you fail again and again.

Can you debate properly? I sincerely doubt if you can.

 

[dybmh]

Your inability to argue properly is rather amusing it is why I keep coming back to see you fail again and again.

My links work. The data is verifiable. I go to actual sources, like the government's website. I don't make assumptions.

Your source's links don't work. The data is not verifiable. You don't go the actual sources, like government websites. You do make assumptions.

Can you debate properly? I sincerely doubt if you can.

Your standards can't be trusted. You posted a video claiming it's a kosher slaughterhouse with no evidence to back it up. It's nothing more than a rumor, but you believe it anyway. It's a pefect example of the pattern of the lowest possible standards for making a claim. Your own sources either cannot distinguish between Halal and Kosher, or they support my claims. You've been wrong repeatedly in this thread about virtually everything.

There is nothing wrong with ritual Jewish slaughter. It's actually pretty amazing how well it works and how the animals do not even notice their necks being slit, showing no reaction other than a small shudder. The method is approved and endorsed by a well known Animal rights activist with academic credentials. Mutiple studies with measurable data confirm those 3000+ observed slaughters from 3 different ACTUAL kosher slaughterhouses.

The one time there was a real problem, the entire slaughterhouse was corrupt from the ground up. The slaughterhouse was shut down, the CEO incarcerated. In 2016, peta organized a walkthru of a slaughterhouse using the shackle-hoist method for factory slaughter by Jewish leaders and Rabbis. In 2018 those practices are prohibited for kosher certification by the OU, one of the largest, if not THE largest kashrut authority. And the state of Israel no longer permits meat slaughtered in that manner to be imported.

And this is why it's important to know WHEN the videos you are consuming were recorded. It's impotant to know WHERE the video was taken. It important to know the NAME OF THE SLAUGHTERHOUSE. Are you looking at old footage of a known corrupt slaughterhouse? Is it even Jewish ritual slaughter at all? Are you watching the same slauhterhouse video chopped up and assuming it's different slaughterhouses taken over a period of time? Do you even know what you're looking at? Do you know what you're talking about?

Shackle-hoist is more about factory production, not the Jewish ritual slaughter. This is understandable. The original methods were not developed considering conveyor lines and cranes lifting the animal and automated cattle boxes, and trap doors in the floor surprising the animal, etc...

So, your argument is nothing more than an argument from ignorance. You don't know how to identify proper sources. You cannot identify an actual kosher sluaghterhouse. When there is cruelty you cannot identify the root cause. If there is data you cannot locate information that actually comes from Jewish ritual slaughter. You posted a video that is equivilant to a rumor about Jewish ritual slaughter. So that's it. You've brought nothing supporting your argument.

I on the other hand brought actual academic research from various sources. All peer-reviewed. 3 or more different journals. So, that's it. the debate is over.

You brought basically nothing, some of it irrevelant, the rest were false claims and false assumptions. And I brought plenty, none of which can be rebutted.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My links work. The data is verifiable. I go to actual sources, like the government's website. I don't make assumptions.

Your source's links don't work. The data is not verifiable. You don't go the actual sources, like government websites. You do make assumptions.



Your standards can't be trusted. You posted a video claiming it's a kosher slaughterhouse with no evidence to back it up. It's nothing more than a rumor, but you believe it anyway. It's a pefect example of the pattern of the lowest possible standards for making a claim. Your own sources either cannot distinguish between Halal and Kosher, or they support my claims. You've been wrong repeatedly in this thread about virtually everything.

There is nothing wrong with ritual Jewish slaughter. It's actually pretty amazing how well it works and how the animals do not even notice their necks being slit, showing no reaction other than a small shudder. The method is approved and endorsed by a well known Animal rights activist with academic credentials. Mutiple studies with measurable data confirm those 3000+ observed slaughters from 3 different ACTUAL kosher slaughterhouses.

The one time there was a real problem, the entire slaughterhouse was corrupt from the ground up. The slaughterhouse was shut down, the CEO incarcerated. In 2016, peta organized a walkthru of a slaughterhouse using the shackle-hoist method for factory slaughter by Jewish leaders and Rabbis. In 2018 those practices are prohibited for kosher certification by the OU, one of the largest, if not THE largest kashrut authority. And the state of Israel no longer permits meat slaughtered in that manner to be imported.

And this is why it's important to know WHEN the videos you are consuming were recorded. It's impotant to know WHERE the video was taken. It important to know the NAME OF THE SLAUGHTERHOUSE. Are you looking at old footage of a known corrupt slaughterhouse? Is it even Jewish ritual slaughter at all? Are you watching the same slauhterhouse video chopped up and assuming it's different slaughterhouses taken over a period of time? Do you even know what you're looking at? Do you know what you're talking about?

Shackle-hoist is more about factory production, not the Jewish ritual slaughter. This is understandable. The original methods were not developed considering conveyor lines and cranes lifting the animal and automated cattle boxes, and trap doors in the floor surprising the animal, etc...

So, your argument is nothing more than an argument from ignorance. You don't know how to identify proper sources. You cannot identify an actual kosher sluaghterhouse. When there is cruelty you cannot identify the root cause. If there is data you cannot locate information that actually comes from Jewish ritual slaughter. You posted a video that is equivilant to a rumor about Jewish ritual slaughter. So that's it. You've brought nothing supporting your argument.

I on the other hand brought actual academic research from various sources. All peer-reviewed. 3 or more different journals. So, that's it. the debate is over.

You brought basically nothing, some of it irrevelant, the rest were false claims and false assumptions. And I brought plenty, none of which can be rebutted.

Your interpretations of the law appear to be wrong. You keep assuming that there is rapid loss of consciousness when that does not appear to be the case. Government sources appear to disagree with you in that regard. Forgive me if I am a bit skeptical when the only claims of quick loss of consciousness comes from Jewish sources, where government sources seem to say that us not the case.

And you deny the evidence that refutes you. I never used an argument from ignorance.


If you want to demand evidence you must show at least a good faith effort to understand the sources that refute your claims.

 

[dybmh]

Your interpretations of the law appear to be wrong.

No, it literally says the animal is stunned after if it does not immediately lose conscsiousness.

And it does not say animals are always stunned after the cut.

You keep assuming that there is rapid loss of consciousness when that does not appear to be the case.

Yes it is the case. It is not an assumption.

Pros and cons of different stunning methods from a Halal perspective: a review

There has always been a debate about the acceptability of stunning methods for preparing Halal slaughtered meat. Throughout the last few decades, stunning methods have become acceptable for Halal slaughtering due to an increasing majority of Muslim countries ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Government sources appear to disagree with you in that regard.

No they don't.

Forgive me if I am a bit skeptical when the only claims of quick loss of consciousness comes from Jewish sources, where government sources seem to say that us not the case.

There it is, more racism. This time it's not racist against Chinese, it's racist against Jews. So, how do you judge a "Jewish" source. Based on the name? What is a "Jewish" source?

The data above comes from Dr. Temple Grandin who was raised Episcopalian. So no, not Jewish.

And you deny the evidence that refutes you.

No I haven't. None of your data is coming from kosher slaughterhouses.

I never used an argument from ignorance.

Sure you did, you don't *actually* know if the video you posted is from a kosher slaughterhouse. You don't know when it was recorded. You don't know anything about it.

If you want to demand evidence you must show at least a good faith effort to understand the sources that refute your claims.

You haven't brought any sources that refute my claims. The source you tried to bring observed and studied Halal slaughterhouses. And the source you brought on hypetension was completely irrelevant. Then you try to make some kind of logical argument but those fail too, see below.

Do you remember the pain of the surgery/ The site will be sore, but you never experienced the pain of the knife cutting into you. At least no consciously.

When a person is under anesthesia, their hypothalmus is supressed. That would mean the hormones that were measured in the cow when it is stunned either indicates:

1) it expereinced the pain and suffering before it was unconscious
2) it wasn' actually unconscious in a way that it doesn't experience pain like surgery

And this is known beause they measured hormone levels throughout the entire process, from selection all the way to slaughter.

And I brought this up in post#218. And I brought good credible sources to back it up:

Anaesthesia, analgesia, and the surgical stress response

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

So, you see, you bring an example which is either irrelevant, or it supports my claim that the stunned animal is suffering just as much if not more than the jewish ritual slaughter.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, it literally says the animal is stunned after if it does not immediately lose conscsiousness.

And it does not say animals are always stunned after the cut.



Yes it is the case. It is not an assumption.

Pros and cons of different stunning methods from a Halal perspective: a review

There has always been a debate about the acceptability of stunning methods for preparing Halal slaughtered meat. Throughout the last few decades, stunning methods have become acceptable for Halal slaughtering due to an increasing majority of Muslim countries ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

View attachment 78644



No they don't.



There it is, more racism. This time it's not racist against Chinese, it's racist against Jews. So, how do you judge a "Jewish" source. Based on the name? What is a "Jewish" source?

The data above comes from Dr. Temple Grandin who was raised Episcopalian. So no, not Jewish.



No I haven't. None of your data is coming from kosher slaughterhouses.



Sure you did, you don't *actually* know if the video you posted is from a kosher slaughterhouse. You don't know when it was recorded. You don't know anything about it.



You haven't brought any sources that refute my claims. The source you tried to bring observed and studied Halal slaughterhouses. And the source you brought on hypetension was completely irrelevant. Then you try to make some kind of logical argument but those fail too, see below.



When a person is under anesthesia, their hypothalmus is supressed. That would mean the hormones that were measured in the cow when it is stunned either indicates:

1) it expereinced the pain and suffering before it was unconscious
2) it wasn' actually unconscious in a way that it doesn't experience pain like surgery

And this is known beause they measured hormone levels throughout the entire process, from selection all the way to slaughter.

And I brought this up in post#218. And I brought good credible sources to back it up:

Anaesthesia, analgesia, and the surgical stress response

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

So, you see, you bring an example which is either irrelevant, or it supports my claim that the stunned animal is suffering just as much if not more than the jewish ritual slaughter.

TLDR. There is no need to write a book for a short reply. There is no need to excessively break up a post. You are merely trying to justify your reinterpretation of the law that you do not understand. You are still using excessive "green ink. And of course you never answer a direct question.

When you demonstrate that you are listening we can discuss why you are wrong.

 

[dybmh]

TLDR.

You don't read stuff anyway.

There is no need to write a book for a short reply.

Sometimes it takes extra words to counter a lie.

There is no need to excessively break up a post.

There's no need to make multiple false statements in a single post. Make 1 false statement at a time, and I'll refute them in the manner you desire.

And there's no need for the racism either.

So, what's a "Jewish" source? How do you know they're Jewish? Do you think the peer-review process is "Jewish", what about the editors of the multiple Journals? Are they Jewish? Are all of them Jewish?

Do you realize what a total *** you made of yourself? Again? First you assume that MDPI is Chinese. Then you assume that the Chinese can't be trusted to have an actual non-profit. Now you're talking about "Jewish" sources when you have no idea who's Jewish and who isn't. And you could have looked up Dr. Grandin so se they're not jewish

Wow dude. Just wow.

You are merely trying to justify your reinterpretation of the law that you do not understand.

No, I'm quoting the government website. I'm quoting the official policy. You are quoting an activist website which is referring to something from 2004 which is not to be found anywhere for confirmation. If it exists it could be cherry picking. Who knows. And since the bottom of the website you are using has broken links to that are supposed to direct to the Australian government's standards, your whole source, as usual, is not credible or reliable.

Going by the government's website, what it literally says: the animal is not ALWAYS stunned after. It is only stunned IF it is not rendered unconscious as part of the ritual slaughter. That is precisely what it says.

Going by actual data, jewish ritual slaughter DOES render it unconscious as part of the ritual slaughter.

You are still using excessive "green ink.

Nope.

And of course you never answer a direct question.

Sure I do.

Look. It's another SubD false statement. SubD maken' the substandard claims... again. as usual.

You asked a direct question, and I gave a direct answer. You don't read. That's on you.

When you demonstrate that you are listening we can discuss why you are wrong.

You have zero credibility. I don't care what you say. I'm just refuting your nonsense. If you have nothing more to say, that would be good.

I'm not wrong on any of this.

If the animal was ALWAYS stunned after, then that's what the Australian governement policy would have said.
If the cows slaughter by kosher standards suffered, then Dr. Grandin would have said so.
If the cows slaughtered by kosher standards suffered more than conventional slaughter, then the hormones and EEG data would have reported that.
If your sources were relevant, they would have studied kosher slaughterhouses, instead they only studied Halal.
If your video was relevant it would have a date/location/name of slaughterhouse attached to it.
If you were being resourceful and intelligent, you would have figured this out long ago.
If you had integrity, you would admit that you were wrong.
If you were fair minded, you wouldn't make judements based on race, and religious identity. Especially if you don't KNOW their religious identity. "The chinese can't be trusted" and "Jewish sources aren't taken seriously". How do you determine a 'Jewish" source? Is the peer-review process "Jewish"? Are the editors Jewish? All of them, are they all Jewish? Dr. Grandin isn't Jewish. So where is this racism and bigotry coming from?

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

Yes, ok, if you don't believe actual sheep and cattle and sometimes birds were offered as sacrificial offerings -- ok, have a great day.