Animal sacrifice: out of fashion

[Subduction Zone]

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.



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.

Please, now you are using strawman arguments.

If you think that you can win a debate why are you afraid to debate properly?

 

[VoidCat]

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.

I don't know enough about kosher slaughter to say if you or him are correct. So far however looking at his sources and yours he does seem to know what he's talking about and I do indeed have doubts on if you do. Then again i am biased here having been friends with @dybmh since 2019 and thus would be more likely to trust his sources as a result. So that's one reason why im not adding much into this conversation firstly cuz I would likely be biased towards dybmh anyway and i don't know a lot about the topic. I also only managed to look a little bit at the sources from both you and him and I have a tendency to lose track of information if overwhelmed too much at one time with information which has been often the case in this thread. I'd have to do my own research to reach my own conclusions on if I believe kosher to be humane or not.

 

[VoidCat]

I mean @Subduction Zone how am i supposed to trust any of your sources when anyone who has a small amount of knowledge of animal rights knows peta is a horrible source and to never trust it or quote it on anything regarding animal rights? That's like basic knowledge regarding the animal rights movement. To me even quoting it is enough to make me question all of your sources on the topic regardless of what you can say about @dybmh or what he's saying about your sources. It's like talking about autism and quoting autism speaks you do that I wouldn't trust anything you have to say on autism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't know enough about kosher slaughter to say if you or him are correct. So far however looking at his sources and yours he does seem to know what he's talking about and I do indeed have doubts on if you do. Then again i am biased here having been friends with @dybmh since 2019 and thus would be more likely to trust his sources as a result. So that's one reason why im not adding much into this conversation firstly cuz I would likely be biased towards dybmh anyway and i don't know a lot about the topic. I also only managed to look a little bit at the sources from both you and him and I have a tendency to lose track of information if overwhelmed too much at one time with information which has been often the case in this thread. I'd have to do my own research to reach my own conclusions on if I believe kosher to be humane or not.

I have used many of the same sources as he has. The problem is that he puts a very biased spin on them. For example one of the sources that he used was The Australian RSPCA which stated that post cutting (or "sticking") of cattle required shocking. He found the law that that came from and it does not specifically say that. Though it does imply it strongly. Cattle do not instantaneously lose consciousness after having their neck cut. His own sources supported this too. He merely ignored those facts. What he likes do to is to quote more obscure works that try to claim that cows do not seem to notice it. But back to post cut stunning. The only way to be able to do so immediately as needed as the law requires is to have the cow already in a rig that allows stunning at the same time that the cut is done. It simply cannot be done after the fact. Or perhaps @dybmh could tell us how it is done when necessary. Cattle stay conscious for seconds much longer than he will have you believe. In fact up to two minutes. Seconds alone would be a violation of that law. So it appears that the policy became to automatically stun cattle after the cut. It only makes logical sense. Why wait? He has never answered that question. Why not use both methods for the least pain?

As to sources for that this backs up that reasoning, and it is better than many of the biased sources that he has used:

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

"The exemption for religious slaughter is:

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.

Clause 7.12 is controversial. Animal protection groups [66,67], the Greens, and some Meat Industry Groups [68], have called for pre-slaughter stunning to be mandatory rather than the stunning process occurring after the animal is stuck. A national guideline, Ritual Slaughter for Ovine (Sheep) and Bovine (Cattle), provides further detail around 7.12. (2) For cattle, the stunning is to take place immediately after the throat cut, with two slaughtermen present so that one performs the cut and the other stuns. Stunning is usually mechanical, done by captive bolt and the animal is to be restrained in an upright position. For sheep, stunning is not required after sticking unless the animal is distressed or does not rapidly lose consciousness [67]. The reason for this inter-species difference in requirement for post-stun is due to anatomic differences in the vasculature to the brain [69]. Vertebral arteries in cattle provide an alternate route for blood to reach the brain, and since not severed by the neck cut, prevent immediate insensibility through the cut alone. It has traditionally been believed that similar concerns did not exist for sheep and goats and hence there was no need for post-cut stun. However there is mounting anecdotal evidence that time to insensibility is protracted in a number of sheep and goats possibly because of the same alternative arterial pathway, and therefore further scientific research and review of this guidance is required [70]"

I would have no problem if post cut stunning was implemented. He has as of yet to explain why that is a bad idea.

 

[VoidCat]

I have used many of the same sources as he has. The problem is that he puts a very biased spin on them. For example one of the sources that he used was The Australian RSPCA which stated that post cutting (or "sticking") of cattle required shocking. He found the law that that came from and it does not specifically say that. Though it does imply it strongly. Cattle do not instantaneously lose consciousness after having their neck cut. His own sources supported this too. He merely ignored those facts. What he likes do to is to quote more obscure works that try to claim that cows do not seem to notice it. But back to post cut stunning. The only way to be able to do so immediately as needed as the law requires is to have the cow already in a rig that allows stunning at the same time that the cut is done. It simply cannot be done after the fact. Or perhaps @dybmh could tell us how it is done when necessary. Cattle stay conscious for seconds much longer than he will have you believe. In fact up to two minutes. Seconds alone would be a violation of that law. So it appears that the policy became to automatically stun cattle after the cut. It only makes logical sense. Why wait? He has never answered that question. Why not use both methods for the least pain?

As to sources for that this backs up that reasoning, and it is better than many of the biased sources that he has used:

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

"The exemption for religious slaughter is:




Clause 7.12 is controversial. Animal protection groups [66,67], the Greens, and some Meat Industry Groups [68], have called for pre-slaughter stunning to be mandatory rather than the stunning process occurring after the animal is stuck. A national guideline, Ritual Slaughter for Ovine (Sheep) and Bovine (Cattle), provides further detail around 7.12. (2) For cattle, the stunning is to take place immediately after the throat cut, with two slaughtermen present so that one performs the cut and the other stuns. Stunning is usually mechanical, done by captive bolt and the animal is to be restrained in an upright position. For sheep, stunning is not required after sticking unless the animal is distressed or does not rapidly lose consciousness [67]. The reason for this inter-species difference in requirement for post-stun is due to anatomic differences in the vasculature to the brain [69]. Vertebral arteries in cattle provide an alternate route for blood to reach the brain, and since not severed by the neck cut, prevent immediate insensibility through the cut alone. It has traditionally been believed that similar concerns did not exist for sheep and goats and hence there was no need for post-cut stun. However there is mounting anecdotal evidence that time to insensibility is protracted in a number of sheep and goats possibly because of the same alternative arterial pathway, and therefore further scientific research and review of this guidance is required [70]"

I would have no problem if post cut stunning was implemented. He has as of yet to explain why that is a bad idea.

I've only given some of the links both y'all provided a courtesy glance. Im not well informed on kosher slaughter and havent had the time to read up on it enough to truly pay attention to yalls sources. I thus am not saying @dybmh is right. Only that i cannot accept any of your conclusions because you quoted peta. Like i said even the most basic understanding of the animal rights movement knows that peta is not to be trusted. And you been arguing for the welfare of the animals right? I assumed that meant you knew a little bit about animal rights. @dybmh i can understand if he didn't after all he's Jewish and eats kosher. So he's likely look up information on kosher slaughter even if he's not as well versed on animal rights as a whole. But you aren't Jewish and don't only eat kosher. So I assumed your interest was due to caring about animal welfare. If the reason you focusing on this is because you care about animal welfare then why are you quoting an organization known to cause harm to animals? An organization that anyone who cares a small bit about animal rights knows not to trust? It smells of bias.

Note im not agreeing with either of yall conclusions on kosher slaughter. I just dont know enough about it and right now I can't take anything you say seriously because of this.

 

[dybmh]

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.

No, you only brought 1 peta video.

And your other sources were studying Halal.

And the other stuff was irrelevant.

 

[dybmh]

I have used many of the same sources as he has. The problem is that he puts a very biased spin on them. For example one of the sources that he used was The Australian RSPCA which stated that post cutting (or "sticking") of cattle required shocking.

That is not true. I did not use the RSPCA site. You did. I used the goverment for Australia's website. The first post is YOU using the RSPCA website which claims a 2004 policy which is missing from the goverments website. But a page prior to that I had already brought the Australian government's website. You can see this fromthe post numbers.

He found the law that that came from and it does not specifically say that. Though it does imply it strongly.

No, if it wanted to say that, it would have said it. It doesn't strongly imply anything.

Cattle do not instantaneously lose consciousness after having their neck cut. His own sources supported this too. He merely ignored those facts. What he likes do to is to quote more obscure works that try to claim that cows do not seem to notice it.

No... I have brought the evidence. And you have brought none. It is not obscure works. It is a reuptable journal. You are so full of 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

The only way to be able to do so immediately as needed as the law requires is to have the cow already in a rig that allows stunning at the same time that the cut is done. It simply cannot be done after the fact. Or perhaps @dybmh could tell us how it is done when necessary.

I already told you. That is the method which Dr. Granding endorses for koshe slaughter. The stunning is not needed.

So it appears that the policy became to automatically stun cattle after the cut. It only makes logical sense. Why wait? He has never answered that question. Why not use both methods for the least pain?

There is no stunning if the animal is immediately unconscious. And that's what the law says.

As to sources for that this backs up that reasoning, and it is better than many of the biased sources that he has used:

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

#1, guess who published that study. MDPI Animals. That's who did the peer-review. It's right there at the top of the page. The same one that you complained and complained and complained about. I guess that's more hypocrisy to add to the fire.

For cattle, the stunning is to take place immediately after the throat cut, with two slaughtermen present so that one performs the cut and the other stuns. Stunning is usually mechanical, done by captive bolt and the animal is to be restrained in an upright position. For sheep, stunning is not required after sticking unless the animal is distressed or does not rapidly lose consciousness [67].

Of course.. you probably didn't click on the link for 67 did you. Guess who?



The same exact faulty source you keep quoting. The same one that lists a broken link and a policy from 200 that is nowhere to be found and is missing from the Austalian governments website.

And, if you read the study you just posted:

​

However, the details of religious slaughter practices, including related animal welfare provisions, appear to be poorly understood by the Australian public,​

​

That means the RSCPA doesn't actually know what the laws are. And this 2004 document they quote is gone.

I would have no problem if post cut stunning was implemented. He has as of yet to explain why that is a bad idea.

I already said, if the ritual slaughter failed, please stun it. But it makes no sense to do it, if it's already brain dead.

 

[dybmh]

Please, now you are using strawman arguments.

Nope, you brought irrelevant sources, and you tried ti discredit mine based on some imagined Jewishness of my sources. And other BS as well.

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.

If you think that you can win a debate why are you afraid to debate properly?

Your standards of debating 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]

I mean @Subduction Zone how am i supposed to trust any of your sources when anyone who has a small amount of knowledge of animal rights knows peta is a horrible source and to never trust it or quote it on anything regarding animal rights? That's like basic knowledge regarding the animal rights movement. To me even quoting it is enough to make me question all of your sources on the topic regardless of what you can say about @dybmh or what he's saying about your sources. It's like talking about autism and quoting autism speaks you do that I wouldn't trust anything you have to say on autism.

Even if he was ignorant of it, like I was. SubD has been making noise about these videos for quite a while. I went and looked at them myself. I know what's out there, and it's not much. But I did notice that the videos don't tell you anything about when, where, and who is doing the slaughter.

I told this to SubD. And I asked why does he think they're actually kosher slaughterhouses? I told him to post these videos if he knew when, where, and who. Without that they could be from anywhere.

This triggered all kinds of backlash. Eventually he posted the video anyway in spite of any reasonable standard of evidence. I've been calling it a rumor and irrelevant. He shouldn't have posted it anyway. He shouldn't have considered reliable info it regardless of where it came from.

 

[VoidCat]

Even if he was ignorant of it, like I was. SubD has been making noise about these videos for quite a while. I went and looked at them myself. I know what's out there, and it's not much. But I did notice that the videos don't tell you anything about when, where, and who is doing the slaughter.

I told this to SubD. And I asked why does he think they're actually kosher slaughterhouses? I told him to post these videos if he knew when, where, and who. Without that they could be from anywhere.

This triggered all kinds of backlash. Eventually he posted the video anyway in spite of any reasonable standard of evidence. I've been calling it a rumor and irrelevant. He shouldn't have posted it anyway. He shouldn't have considered reliable info it regardless of where it came from.

I noticed that. And I agree if he going to post a video he should be sure it's from an actual kosher slaughterhouse. But quoting peta...i get being ignorant on it but to claim that you concerned about the welfare of the animals and yet quote a group known for harming animals that most folk who know anything about animal rights knows not to trust...it definitely shows bias. Or at the least a lack of knowledge regarding the animal rights movement.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is not true. I did not use the RSPCA site. You did. I used the goverment for Australia's website. The first post is YOU using the RSPCA website which claims a 2004 policy which is missing from the goverments website. But a page prior to that I had already brought the Australian government's website. You can see this fromthe post numbers.

View attachment 78680

View attachment 78682




No, if it wanted to say that, it would have said it. It doesn't strongly imply anything.




No... I have brought the evidence. And you have brought none. It is not obscure works. It is a reuptable journal. You are so full of 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

View attachment 78683

View attachment 78684




I already told you. That is the method which Dr. Granding endorses for koshe slaughter. The stunning is not needed.



There is no stunning if the animal is immediately unconscious. And that's what the law says.


#1, guess who published that study. MDPI Animals. That's who did the peer-review. It's right there at the top of the page. The same one that you complained and complained and complained about. I guess that's more hypocrisy to add to the fire.



Of course.. you probably didn't click on the link for 67 did you. Guess who?

View attachment 78685

The same exact faulty source you keep quoting. The same one that lists a broken link and a policy from 200 that is nowhere to be found and is missing from the Austalian governments website.

And, if you read the study you just posted:

​

However, the details of religious slaughter practices, including related animal welfare provisions, appear to be poorly understood by the Australian public,​

​

That means the RSCPA doesn't actually know what the laws are. And this 2004 document they quote is gone.



I already said, if the ritual slaughter failed, please stun it. But it makes no sense to do it, if it's already brain dead.

You used it before I did. But since you refuse to debate properly I have no need to dig up those past posts.

When you can debate properly then you can make demands.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I noticed that. And I agree if he going to post a video he should be sure it's from an actual kosher slaughterhouse. But quoting peta...i get being ignorant on it but to claim that you concerned about the welfare of the animals and yet quote a group known for harming animals that most folk who know anything about animal rights knows not to trust...it definitely shows bias. Or at the least a lack of knowledge regarding the animal rights movement.

I have in other threads on this subject posted videos from both. Perhaps that is where his confusion lies. Did you check out the source from my the post that I made to you? Sorry, you have have already responded. That one alone refutes all of the sources that he has used. Biased sources, whether for or against a topic are not of much value, I will agree with that. He has used obviously pro kosher slaughter sources in the past. They were better than PETA sources, but not much. My latest one is from a government agency and they tend to be more neutral.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope, you brought irrelevant sources, and you tried ti discredit mine based on some imagined Jewishness of my sources. And other BS as well.

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.



Your standards of debating 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.

Thank you for admitting that you are wrong again by referring to old lost arguments. And using strawman versions at that.

I do not strawman your arguments. When one has to use strawman attacks one is admitting that one's own arguments are not very good.

Learn how to debate properly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've only given some of the links both y'all provided a courtesy glance. Im not well informed on kosher slaughter and havent had the time to read up on it enough to truly pay attention to yalls sources. I thus am not saying @dybmh is right. Only that i cannot accept any of your conclusions because you quoted peta. Like i said even the most basic understanding of the animal rights movement knows that peta is not to be trusted. And you been arguing for the welfare of the animals right? I assumed that meant you knew a little bit about animal rights. @dybmh i can understand if he didn't after all he's Jewish and eats kosher. So he's likely look up information on kosher slaughter even if he's not as well versed on animal rights as a whole. But you aren't Jewish and don't only eat kosher. So I assumed your interest was due to caring about animal welfare. If the reason you focusing on this is because you care about animal welfare then why are you quoting an organization known to cause harm to animals? An organization that anyone who cares a small bit about animal rights knows not to trust? It smells of bias.

Note im not agreeing with either of yall conclusions on kosher slaughter. I just dont know enough about it and right now I can't take anything you say seriously because of this.

You really should take a good look at the sites. You will note that @dybmh tends to cherry pick quotes and ignore the parts of his own articles, if he provides a link, that refute him. He also cannot keep on topic. The argument was about adult cows keeping conscious for extended periods of time, but he could not refer to my source and keep on topic. He had to go to another sources, He has only used strawman arguments when he tries to refute my claims. That has been pointed out time and time again. That tells you that he is not dealing with the actual arguments. He also has a tendency to use excessive Green Ink, a concept that he cannot understand and in fact denies because, and I am paraphrasing but it is close "none of what he was written was done in green". Oh my. And an article was provided to explain the concept.

At any rate until he learns how to debate most of my posts are just going to deal with that fact.

 

[dybmh]

You used it before I did

No. Not even true. Here's the proof: The first time that link was brought was BY YOU. You are shown the lowest, worst, accuracy. And the least honesty I can possibly imagine. YOU brought that crappy source. And you keep using it.

The source I brought was from the Austrailian Government, because I can tell the difference between a reliable source and garbage.

. But since you refuse to debate properly I have no need to dig up those past posts.

You can't dig them up. They don't exist. Your dishonesty, and lack of integrity is on full display.

When you can debate properly then you can make demands.

You knew your own source was unreliable. But you posted it anyway.

PETA was one source. And I agree that they are often rather suspect

And you posted their video anyway. You've been claiming, "the videos prove you wrong, the videos prove you wrong..." But you knoew the videos are often rather suspect. Your own words.

You don't get to complain about "debating properly". You aren't able to judge sources, facts, relevance. Or debating.

 

[dybmh]

Thank you for admitting that you are wrong again by referring to old lost arguments. And using strawman versions at that.

I do not strawman your arguments. When one has to use strawman attacks one is admitting that one's own arguments are not very good.

Learn how to debate properly.

I'm not strawmanning. You have no arguments. You have nothing.

 

[dybmh]

You really should take a good look at the sites. You will note that @dybmh tends to cherry pick quotes and ignore the parts of his own articles, if he provides a link, that refute him. He also cannot keep on topic. The argument was about adult cows keeping conscious for extended periods of time, but he could not refer to my source and keep on topic. He had to go to another sources,

Your sources were about Halal slaughter. Irrelevant.

He has only used strawman arguments when he tries to refute my claims.

No your sources have no relevant data. You cannot find anything that's meaningful.

That has been pointed out time and time again. That tells you that he is not dealing with the actual arguments. He also has a tendency to use excessive Green Ink, a concept that he cannot understand and in fact denies because, and I am paraphrasing but it is close "none of what he was written was done in green". Oh my. And an article was provided to explain the concept.

That's just as relevant as Halal. As she explained to you. If you know your source is rather often suspect and you post it anyway. You're done. You have no credility to make claims about me. I check my sources. And they're relevent. It's not cherry picking to ignore Halal slaughter.

At any rate until he learns how to debate most of my posts are just going to deal with that fact.

You have no facts. You have no arguments. You're complaining about formatting choices when YOU post stuff you know is often unreliable.

PETA was one source. And I agree that they are often rather suspect

You're going to see a lot of this quote. Anytime you complain about my debating. This one quote proves you post stuff knowing it's not reliable. And that terrible debating. The absolute worst.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I sure did. I brought the kosher standard. You simply ignore.. the whole debate you make claims and ignore the evidence brought. You are well known for this. Along with complaining about formatting, and breaking up your posts, and "oh, oh, it's too long, I'm on my tablet...."



And I did. From Dr. Grandin a well known animal rights activist. Here it is again:

View attachment 78596




And there it is, just keep repeating it... "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

You haven't brought any of the videos. I have repeatedly challenged you to put your money where your mouth is IF you can tell us the date, the location, and the name of the slaughter-house.

You haven't because, as soon as you do, it will be exposed that YOU ARE MAKING THIS STUFF UP.

I went myself and looked for videos, and what I saw doesn't look like Jewish ritual slaughter. I couldn't confirm where the video came from, or when he video was taken.

You don't have proof, SubD, just story telling. And considering how wrong you're been, not just in this tread. You have a pattern of doing this. And not just you, most bible critics that show up here have this same pattern. They don't check the facts. They say stuff, and can't back it up, and what they say doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

BRING these videos, plural. Bring them instead of just talking about them. Put them in a spoiler, include the date, the location, and the name of the slaughter-house.

Can you do it, or not?

Nope, You screwed up again. The law has been rewritten many times. That RSPCA source is from 2020 or even more recent. The regulation for stunning first appeared in 2004. You are misinterpreting the laws again. Your 2007 source has the same regulation. Here is a clue, just because you find something in a 2007 law does not mean that that regulation did not occur earlier. You keep misinterpreting it because you have some sort of mental block when it comes to the wording "immediately". I have supported that claim with more than one source.

So how do I know that it is from 2020? Well for one thing there is this line from the article:

"Our understanding (as of 2020) is that there are 9 abattoirs and poultry processors in Australia with approval to conduct slaughter without prior stunning:"

You have criticized me for not understanding how kosher slaughter is done, You seem to lean rather heavily on your Jewish heritage for that claim. And you are probably right. A Jew should understood Jewish procedures than a non-Jew. But you are being a bit hypocritical. Who do you think understands the policies of how laws are applied better? An Australian agency that works intimately with those laws or an American Jew with a doctrinal axe to grind?

They give the reason for that decision in their article. They state that cattle, contrary to your claims, do not pass out immediately. Various sources that I and you have supplied have confirmed this. You ignore those parts of the articles. Again and again and again. At any rate the only way to be able to follow the law that you referred to is to have them set up to be stunned after the cut. Do you understand this? And it appears that the policy is to stun immediately because it is known that the cut will not make a full grown cow pass out.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your sources were about Halal slaughter. Irrelevant.



No your sources have no relevant data. You cannot find anything that's meaningful.



That's just as relevant as Halal. As she explained to you. If you know your source is rather often suspect and you post it anyway. You're done. You have no credility to make claims about me. I check my sources. And they're relevent. It's not cherry picking to ignore Halal slaughter.



You have no facts. You have no arguments. You're complaining about formatting choices when YOU post stuff you know is often unreliable.



You're going to see a lot of this quote. Anytime you complain about my debating. This one quote proves you post stuff knowing it's not reliable. And that terrible debating. The absolute worst.

Oh my. More false claims. Some of my sources involved Halal sources.

Don't start off with an obvious false claim when you are trying to claim not to use strawman arguments.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's in your own source. I quoted it before. At the very least, that was what was observed.

Quotes out of context are never proper.