I linked an article on the problems with that source. I can link others. Your source has problems.
Apples and oranges. Each journal has its own editors and reviewers as your own source shows. But since you didn't read it, you don't know.
The data for the EEG comes from Europe PMC. Read the link, look for the footnotes, click on the footnotes. This is what an intelligent person would do. Is that not what you do when researching something?
No, they are not "signs of suffering". They are the bodies reaction to events. Suffering only happens if consciousness exists. You should be able to understand this.
If you want to make a claim about sensate pain, then you need to bring research to support it. Something from an academic insitution. This is what happens when you bring a non-academic, self-published, non-peer reviewed, non-published data from the late 60s to a debate. And that's ignoring all the other ignorant stuff you say.
One does not need to "measure" to detect pain or distress. They are still objective evidence since one can observe the signs of distress. You do not seem to understand how science is done. It is not limited to the laboratory.
LOL. You have nothing and are claiming it's valuable. Yes, you need something measurable to distinguish between an involuntary reaction, and actual suffering that is perceived by the brain.
If you don't need actual research, then go fishing. Catch a fish. Cut off it's head completely. And watch it move. Oh my goodness it's science!
Really? Prove it. So far your one source has not done so.
It has. But you need to read it.
No, again, you do not appear to understand the scientific method.
I do I do understand.
Too bad that you failed to find a reliable source. You are being inconsistent but refuse to see it.
Nope. It is reliable. You just can't figure out what the source is. Try reading, following the footnotes, then clicky-clicky.
LOL! Dude, you are the one that has not provided any evidence. And you got the saying wrong. Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. It can be.
Yup. Absence of evidence is not evidence of anything. Absence of evidence can lead to a theory. But nothing more.
No, once again, to suffer an animal needs to be sensate. Proper stunning renders an animal unconscious. Their bodies will still physically react. If they somehow regained consciousness then they would feel the pain. Conscious pain does make stress even worse, but if one is unconscious those reactions will still occur. You forgot the example of epinephrine again.
If you want to argue about sensate pain, you need to bring a real source. Your words and like a pair of buttcheeks flapping in the wind.
We are not dealing with the exceptions. If that was the case you would still lose if you watched the videos that I provided.
Videos do not defeat academic peer-reviewed current research. Especially coming from a biased internet poster.
Many Muslims have realized that stunning is more humane and have incorporated it. There will be some bad stuns. There are obviously some very bad attempts at kosher butchery as well. Generally standards are not based upon exceptions. one attempts to limit the failures. But it appears that kosher butchery has old traditions so deeply ensconced that they only care about their tradition and do not care about minimizing animal suffering. There will be suffering. Regardless of method. Why not try to minimize it. An unconscious animal cannot suffer.
Because the stunning causes problems too. "Here cow, let me bash you in the head a few times so you can't feel the pain I'm about to inflict." Is pretty stupid.
