Animal sacrifice: out of fashion

[YoursTrue]

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.

What I have seen from some posters is that they will say anything as long as it is against what is true, in other words, right there in front of their eyes. And my reaction now is, "Oh, well, have a good day."

 

[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 E to he 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.

Exodus 29:18 - King James Version -
"And thou shalt burn the whole ram upon the altar: it is a burnt offering unto the LORD: it is a sweet savour, an offering made by fire unto the LORD."

 

[dybmh]

What I have seen from some posters is that they will say anything as long as it is against what is true, in other words, right there in front of their eyes. And my reaction now is, "Oh, well, have a good day."

I need to learn to be more like you.

If you see me wishing people a good day, you'll know why.

 

[YoursTrue]

I need to learn to be more like you.

If you see me wishing people a good day, you'll know why.

Hate to say it, but at a certain point, there is no point. And I don't want to get into quantum mechanics. But now sincerely, have a great night. That's not goodbye.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You don't read stuff anyway.



Sometimes it takes extra words to counter a lie.



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.


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.



Nope.



Sure I do.

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

View attachment 78645

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



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?

When you learn how to debate properly then we can have a discussion. Until then your improper techniques are obvious to anyone that understands debate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What I have seen from some posters is that they will say anything as long as it is against what is true, in other words, right there in front of their eyes. And my reaction now is, "Oh, well, have a good day."

And yet when it comes to anything in the sciences all that you can do is to demonstrate that you do not understand the topic being discussed and then run away. It appears that you are only describing your sins here.

 

[dybmh]

When you learn how to debate properly then we can have a discussion. Until then your improper techniques are obvious to anyone that understands debate.

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.

 

[dybmh]

And yet when it comes to anything in the sciences all that you can do is to demonstrate that you do not understand the topic being discussed and then run away. It appears that you are only describing your sins here.

No, dude. You are the one who has been clenching their eyes closed and refusing to read research and understand in this thread. YOU are not excused from this at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, dude. You are the one who has been clenching their eyes closed and refusing to read research and understand in this thread. YOU are not excused from this at all.

Then why are you the one that runs away and refuses to debate properly?

You are merely projecting. You cherry picked a Jewish source and ignore less biased sources, specifically government ones. Plus you constantly refer to data that does not apply. Even after your usage of why it does not apply has been explained multiple times. If you want "better data" then you have to listen as much as you demand that others do. And you still do not understand the difference between policy and laws. You cannot just deny evidence. You need to demonstrate that it is wrong.

 

[dybmh]

Then why are you the one that runs away and refuses to debate properly?

I'm here, I'm debating properly. All my claims are fully supported from reliable sources. You have been wrong, racist, made false assumuptions, and what you brought that was true was irrelevant.

You are merely projecting. You cherry picked a Jewish source and ignore less biased sources,

What's a "Jewish" source? How do you judge "Jewish"? by the name? Are all the journals I brought Jewish? Are all the peer-reviewers "Jewish". Are all the editors "Jewish"

Dr. Grandin is not Jewish, and that's my #1 most important source because their bias is animal rights and endorses Jewish ritual slaughter.

You have failed again.

specifically government ones.

The government source isn't biased. It's THE REQURED standard. I quoted it. It does NOT SAY the animal is always stunned.

Plus you constantly refer to data that does not apply.

What are you talking about??? This is Jewish ritual slaughter. It's talking about complete lack of pain and immediate unconcsiousness. It doesn't get more relevant than that.

Even after your usage of why it does not apply has been explained multiple times.

I haven't been constanty referring to hormone levels. But they do support my argument. And your attempts to introduce some irelevant nonsense about hypertension, is a fail. And your attempt to compare it to surgical anasthesia is also a fail.

If you want "better data" then you have to listen as much as you demand that others do.

Why should I listen to you, you have no facts to offer, nothing relevant. You listen to rumors and believe them. You don't double check to see if what you're saying is true.

You act like an ignorant racist. What value do you bring?

And you still do not understand the difference between policy and laws.

You never brought laws. You never brought anything but a website that has broken links and a reference to a 2004 document that is missing from the governments website.

You cannot just deny evidence. You need to demonstrate that it is wrong.

I did! The animals don't suffer from Jewish ritual slaughter. Your attempts to show otherwise all fail.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm here, I'm debating properly. All my claims are fully supported from reliable sources. You have been wrong, racist, made false assumuptions, and what you brought that was true was irrelevant.



What's a "Jewish" source? How do you judge "Jewish"? by the name? Are all the journals I brought Jewish? Are all the peer-reviewers "Jewish". Are all the editors "Jewish"

Dr. Grandin is not Jewish, and that's my #1 most important source because their bias is animal rights and endorses Jewish ritual slaughter.

You have failed again.



The government source isn't biased. It's THE REQURED standard. I quoted it. It does NOT SAY the animal is always stunned.



What are you talking about??? This is Jewish ritual slaughter. It's talking about complete lack of pain and immediate unconcsiousness. It doesn't get more relevant than that.

View attachment 78677



I haven't been constanty referring to hormone levels. But they do support my argument. And your attempts to introduce some irelevant nonsense about hypertension, is a fail. And your attempt to compare it to surgical anasthesia is also a fail.



Why should I listen to you, you have no facts to offer, nothing relevant. You listen to rumors and believe them. You don't double check to see if what you're saying is true.

You act like an ignorant racist. What value do you bring?



You never brought laws. You never brought anything but a website that has broken links and a reference to a 2004 document that is missing from the governments website.



I did! The animals don't suffer from Jewish ritual slaughter. Your attempts to show otherwise all fail.

Once again, you cannot seem to focus. Let's limit this to one point at a time. And please drop the green ink. You should have read the article that I linked to you on the concept. You use far too much of it.

When you cannot debate properly you in effect lose by default.

 

[dybmh]

Once again, you cannot seem to focus. Let's limit this to one point at a time. And please drop the green ink. You should have read the article that I linked to you on the concept. You use far too much of it.

Your linked article was irrelevant.

When you cannot debate properly you in effect lose by default.

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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your linked article was irrelevant.

No, at best you did not understand the point.

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.

More BS. Please, you keep disqualifying yourself from this debate. I gave you a solution and all that you can do is to make personal attacks. You refused to discuss the evidence when presented. It is far too late to put it down now. Learn how to debate if you want a discussion.

 

[dybmh]

No, at best you did not understand the point.

If it's about hypertension. It's irrelevant.
If it's about Halal slaughter. It's irrelevant.
If it's opinion about a goverment policy but the souces are faulty. It's irrelevant.

More BS. Please, you keep disqualifying yourself from this debate. I gave you a solution and all that you can do is to make personal attacks. You refused to discuss the evidence when presented. It is far too late to put it down now. Learn how to debate if you want a discussion.

Your standards of debate are worthless. They do not deal in relevant fact. Your complaints are about formatting, and breaking up posts. It's all cry-baby antics.

You had an opportunity early on to actually debate facts. But since all the facts were on my side. You tried other tactics. You tied to introduce false doubt in the journal I brought. When I brought different journals, those were ignored.

You tied to bring your own soures, but the didn't study Jewish ritual slaughter. And you never once checked up on your sources to see if they actually support your argument.

And even now, you make claims about "Jewish" sources, but ignore how ridiculous it is for all of my sources to be Jewish. All of them? All the peer-reviewers. All the editors. They're all Jewish. And the main person I quote is NOT Jewish and has every motivation to speak negatively about Jewish ritual slaughter. But endorses it.

Then of course there's the video if some misc. slaughterhouse somewhere that peta thinks is kosher. You believe it. But you have ZERO valid reasons to do so.

So your complaints about debating are worthless. You need to demonstrate some consitent integrity, and the ability to bring relevant facts.

 

[VoidCat]

that peta thinks is kosher

Wait was the video from peta? Let me go back and look. I lose track of posts after a while and now cant remember if it was or not. If so Peta I've heard has a well known history of lying about a lot and faking animal abuse videos. It's been a while since I've read about it but I remember they went viral a few years ago for staging a video of a cat being abused.

 

[dybmh]

Wait was the video from peta? Let me go back and look. I lose track of posts after a while and now cant remember if it was or not. If so Peta I've heard has a well known history of lying about a lot and faking animal abuse videos. It's been a while since I've read about it but I remember they went viral a few years ago for staging a video of a cat being abused.

Yes, it was from peta. Thanks for the tip.

 

[VoidCat]

I provided evidence and links earlier in the discussion. As to my claim about Australia didn't you read and follow the links? Stunning has to be done immediately after the cut in Australia. I have no problem with that. They do not allow unstunned slaughter. I have as of yet to see @dybmh own up to his error.

For quite some time PETA has been after the kosher butchers in Uruguay. They export a lot of "kosher" beef to both Israel and the US:

It is also rather difficult for US regulating agencies to monitor slaughter done in other countries. And the data that I posted earlier and the data that he posted earlier showed that stunning is the more humane method of slaughter. Unconsciousness is almost instantaneous when done properly. That is never true of kosher slaughter of cattle.

Kosher Slaughter in South America | PETA

Footage of kosher slaughter from Uruguay reveals extreme cruelty to cattle. Uruguay is the number one exporter of kosher meat to both the United States and Israel.

www.peta.org

I could post links to various videos of kosher slaughter, but I really do not feel like doing so again. They are not pretty.

Sure enough it was. @dybmh
Yeah I wouldnt trust it. Anything from Peta is sus

 

[dybmh]

Wait was the video from peta? Let me go back and look. I lose track of posts after a while and now cant remember if it was or not. If so Peta I've heard has a well known history of lying about a lot and faking animal abuse videos. It's been a while since I've read about it but I remember they went viral a few years ago for staging a video of a cat being abused.

Wow... I'm finding quite a bit on this going back 10+ years. Staging videos for the purpose of manufacturing a public response. It doesn't need to be true for them to post it.

 

[VoidCat]

Wow... I'm finding quite a bit on this going back 10+ years. Staging videos for the purpose of manufacturing a public response. It doesn't need to be true for them to post it.

It's like the animal rights version of autism speaks imo with how awful they are

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure enough it was. @dybmh
Yeah I wouldnt trust it. Anything from Peta is sus

PETA was one source. And I agree that they are often rather suspect. But they were not the only source. I won't do my work again for @dybmh until he changes his "debating" style.