Countries banning of kosher meats are forcing "expulsion" of Jews

[rosends]

I call it outdated because modern technology allows us to slaughter cattle with less pain .

This is exactly what I said. You call it something because of how you understand the situation. You seem to resist someone agreeing with you. I'm not sure what "trait" I attributed to you as my assessment and your assessment of your position are the same. Do you always look for disagreement or argument when you present your position on things?

Do you use this tactic because you have no answer to the OP?

I'm not using any particular tactic and I already addressed the OP in a separate branch of this post, one which you didn't respond to because it wasn't about you.

 

[Cooky]

No, I call it outdated because modern technology allows us to slaughter cattle with less pain . Once again you are attributing traits to people that they don't have but that you probably do. This is not about me and my beliefs, let's try not to make it personal. Do you use this tactic because you have no answer to the OP?

But it really is about your beliefs, Subduction. You seem to believe that cattle deserve humane slaughter based not on facts, but beliefs.

The empathy involved is not based on fact but feeling. And these feelings are very similar to human faith.

 

[Cooky]

Yes, and to some cruelty is second nature. To some, burning a church is nothing to weep about, but society seems to be in agreement that it's still wrong. Property damage, if nothing else. This is no different, and in fact is more pressing as it's something living in a controlled situation where the method of slaughter can easily be changed and adapted to be as humane as possible. It's baffling that in your random tirades of saying nothing you're so staunchly against this notion.

If this is what you 'believe', then it is your religion.

 

[charlie sc]

But the end result is no different in practice and there is no way to suss out any true intent.

The intent seems to be: to reduce the unnecessary suffering of animals. Do you have any evidence or good reason there is an alternate intent?

 

[rosends]

The intent seems to be: to reduce the unnecessary suffering of animals. Do you have any evidence or good reason there is an alternate intent?

If that were the case then the law demanding pure vegetarianism could have been passed. The question is whether, once the line is shifted to allow for killing animals in certain ways, what drives where the new line is drawn. Is eating them "necessary"?

 

[charlie sc]

You didn't answer my question, at all. You deflected.

If that were the case then the law demanding pure vegetarianism could have been passed.

I said reduce the unnecessary suffering of animals, not stop it. I'm not against the idea of attempting to stop all unnecessary suffering of animals, however, we're not at that stage yet. Also, you're argument seems to imply, if that were the goal, we'd get there in one fell swoop. That sounds like nonsense. Perhaps this is the first step to such a worldview.

The question is whether, once the line is shifted to allow for killing animals in certain ways, what drives where the new line is drawn. Is eating them "necessary"?

This is a question not THE question lol. Yes, that is an interesting question.

 

[rosends]

You didn't answer my question, at all. You deflected.

No, I answered by showing that the premise is incomplete. You assume that your premise is total: "The intent seems to be: to reduce the unnecessary suffering of animals. "
Ignoring the "seems to be", you don't extend your premise very far. Animals that get killed by any means suffer unnecessarily. So if the intent is truly as you assume it is, the law should be applied differently. It isn't deflection to point out how your premise fails.

I said reduce the unnecessary suffering of animals, not stop it.

So some unnecessary suffering is acceptable? I've not heard anyone actually say that before. It is a strange position to take.

I'm not against the idea of attempting to stop all unnecessary suffering of animals, however, we're not at that stage yet.

So at some point would you endorse a law demanding all be vegetarians (or better yet, vegans)? How do you decide that we aren't at that point, or what point "we" are at yet?

Also, you're argument seems to imply, if that were the goal, we'd get there in one fell swoop. That sounds like nonsense.

So laws must be implemented incrementally? And they do so without stating a schedule (reduction of pollution by year X so, a percentage reduction now, a reduction of more in 5 years, then the total elimination by X)? I have never heard of that.

This is a question not THE question lol. Yes, that is an interesting question.

It was THE question I was answering.

 

[charlie sc]

No, I answered by showing that the premise is incomplete. You assume that your premise is total: "The intent seems to be: to reduce the unnecessary suffering of animals. ".

No, you deflected. It seems as if you don't want to talk about,"true intent." Fine.

Huh? I'm not constructing a deductive argument. What are you talking about? I'm stating their purpose for banning these types of ritualistic slaughter of animals because... such and such. Now, if you have an alternate explanation, which you implied(true intentions), give it.

Animals that get killed by any means suffer unnecessarily. So if the intent is truly as you assume it is, the law should be applied differently. It isn't deflection to point out how your premise fails.

First, you seem confused trying(?) to construct a deductive argument or think I'm doing it. If you want to do this, fine, but explain it clearly and perhaps construct a syllogism. Second, as advice, I'm noticing a tu quoque fallacy being invoked from you. So, be careful.

So some unnecessary suffering is acceptable? I've not heard anyone actually say that before. It is a strange position to take.

I never said some or any unnecessary suffering is acceptable.

So at some point would you endorse a law demanding all be vegetarians (or better yet, vegans)? How do you decide that we aren't at that point, or what point "we" are at yet?

I never said I would endorse these kinds of laws and your second question is fairly vague.

So laws must be implemented incrementally?

Who said they must be? My comment was on worldviews, culture and, I guess, moral values. Change usually happens incrementally. You seem to conflate laws and intent as though they must necessary follow or have to follow to the extreme.

And they do so without stating a schedule (reduction of pollution by year X so, a percentage reduction now, a reduction of more in 5 years, then the total elimination by X)? I have never heard of that.

What?

It was THE question I was answering.

Lol what? It was a question you ASKED lol. You didn't answer it.

 

[Cooky]

I think to be fair, the Religion of Progress should not impose it's doctrines upon others. It's an abuse of power to force it upon others by making it law.

 

[viole]

Why would what I know make it a strange law? The law is the law regardless of anything else. The police won't know if I run a red light at 3AM (and if I drive with my eyes closed, neither will I). You say something is possible, and I can't disagree. I can only rely on the labeling and care I and others take. If whoever calibrated my speedometer wasn't careful, I might have speeded (sped?) without knowing it. That doesn't change the speed limit.

Well, I can see the purpose of traffic lights. And I would not hesitate to qualify as strange a traffic light on, say, the moon. But in this case, it makes no sense at all.

You guys go through such a hassle to a point to call antisemite people that are more concerned with animals than ancient superstitions, for something that makes no difference, anyway. i am sure, that even of God exsited and was in the past obsessed on how to kill animals, would not care anymore today.

OK. I understand it is difficult to comprehend the infinite. I don't think anyone really can. That isn't how we (as Jews) validate or justify our adherence. We assume that the law as given is the law without trying to judge if we think God really thinks it matters.

It is not difficult at all. i work with infinities on a daily basis.

Intentionally or not? If intentionally, then I would (if I cared) have to repent and change. If I speed and flout that rule, but I decide I care about law and order I should feel bad, and not do it again. If it was an accident I might try to be more aware, but there is no real consequence. Judaism doesn't say that we have to be able to perceive any difference.

That reminds me that practical joke we played on a visiting colleague who is a Muslim. We invited him to cheese fondue (a Swiss speciality) and told him a few hours later that it contained Kirschwasser, a strong spirit. You should have seen his face, lol.

So, from here it does not look rational at all. Not even if I were a theist. Why on heaven would God care?

Ciao

- viole

 

[rosends]

No, you deflected. It seems as if you don't want to talk about,"true intent." Fine.

That's exactly what I was talking about. I was just making the point that I don't know their true intent so the only thing remaining is whether there is any practical difference after implementation.

I'm stating their purpose for banning these types of ritualistic slaughter of animals because... such and such.

And you have the authority to state unequivocally that that is the stated and explicit intent? That's very helpful. I didn't realize that you were in the government.

Now, if you have an alternate explanation, which you implied(true intentions), give it.

If the logic behind their stated intent is applied incompletely, it is certainly reasonable to wonder why. You don't need to ask the question because you accept that law is incremental.

First, you seem confused trying(?) to construct a deductive argument or think I'm doing it. If you want to do this, fine, but explain it clearly and perhaps construct a syllogism. Second, as advice, I'm noticing a tu quoque fallacy being invoked from you. So, be careful.

I'm neither confused nor responding to a criticsm with a criticism. Your labeling avoids what I wrote. If you can't follow it, I can make it simper. Let me know if you need help.

I never said some or any unnecessary suffering is acceptable.

You said "The intent seems to be: to reduce the unnecessary suffering of animals. " If the intent is to reduce, then the intent is not to remove Unless by "reduce"you assume "reduce to nothing"; is that what you mean? If so, you should say that. Otherwise, this means that leaving some is acceptable. Please show me the error in that statement. Thanks.

I never said I would endorse these kinds of laws

Well, you wrote "'I'm not against the idea of attempting to stop all unnecessary suffering of animals" so I'm just wondering if you would be in favor of a legal attempt to do exactly what you said you are not against. Pretty straightforward.

and your second question is fairly vague.

It is actually very specific. If you claim "we're not at that stage yet." This would indicate that you know what stage "we" are at. Can you please define the "we" and explain the stages, indicating which one we are at and how "we" know we are at the next one. Thanks.

Who said they must be?

Well, you wrote "if that were the goal, we'd get there in one fell swoop. That sounds like nonsense." You say tht changing things in one fell swoop is nonsense leaving the incremental appraoch as the alternative. Did you have nother method in mind? Either this aw is an ends, or a step along the way unless you have another approach.Please explain.

My comment was on worldviews, culture and, I guess, moral values. Change usually happens incrementally.

My mistake then. The conversation was about a law. If you wish to discuss worlviews then that's great. It just isn't what this branch was focused on.

You seem to conflate laws and intent as though they must necessary follow or have to follow to the extreme.

Are you saying that laws don't follow a particular intent? That makes them capricious and I guess I prefer to see them as not so.

Lol what? It was a question you ASKED lol. You didn't answer it.

Sure I did. In a nutshell, differing moral structures which stem from different sources lead to different potential intents. What is left is whether the practical differences turn a theoretical discussion into anything more.

 

[rosends]

Well, I can see the purpose of traffic lights. And I would not hesitate to qualify as strange a traffic light on, say, the moon. But in this case, it makes no sense at all.

That's nice. I don't see the purpose of a traffic light in an abandoned intersection at 3AM. But I stop.

You guys go through such a hassle to a point to call antisemite people that are more concerned with animals than ancient superstitions, for something that makes no difference, anyway.

We do? I had no idea that we do that. And here I thought I was a singular pronoun. Look, I'm a plural collective!

i am sure, that even of God exsited and was in the past obsessed on how to kill animals, would not care anymore today.

That's nice.

It is not difficult at all. i work with infinities on a daily basis.

I don't. I can't wrap my head around them.

That reminds me that practical joke we played on a visiting colleague who is a Muslim. We invited him to cheese fondue (a Swiss speciality) and told him a few hours later that it contained Kirschwasser, a strong spirit. You should have seen his face, lol.

Just curious -- would it be equally hilarious if you played a similar trick on a vegetarian, saying that there was meat in the food?

So, from here it does not look rational at all. Not even if I were a theist. Why on heaven would God care?

That question shows your position and I don't deride that. My position is, fundamentally, irrational beause my belief is. The level of "proof" I could provide wouldn't meet the standard you would set. I'm ok with that.

 

[viole]

That's nice. I don't see the purpose of a traffic light in an abandoned intersection at 3AM. But I stop.

Well, me too. I am Swiss, after all. And it is about 250 Sfr if you get a picture of me driving through. But again, even if I stop, I would still call that traffic light stupid. You do the same?

I don't. I can't wrap my head around them.

Read Cantor.

Just curious -- would it be equally hilarious if you played a similar trick on a vegetarian, saying that there was meat in the food?

I doubt that. I played that with my son, who is a vegetarian, and he just laughed. I wonder whether really has my genes, lol.

That question shows your position and I don't deride that. My position is, fundamentally, irrational beause my belief is. The level of "proof" I could provide wouldn't meet the standard you would set. I'm ok with that.

Feel free to deride it. I like it when people deride my position.

Anyway, How can you hold a belief that is, by your own admission, irrational? This is much worse than infinites and it is me this time who cannot wrap her head around that.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Cooky]

Well, I can see the purpose of traffic lights. And I would not hesitate to qualify as strange a traffic light on, say, the moon. But in this case, it makes no sense at all.

You guys go through such a hassle to a point to call antisemite people that are more concerned with animals than ancient superstitions, for something that makes no difference, anyway. i am sure, that even of God exsited and was in the past obsessed on how to kill animals, would not care anymore today.



It is not difficult at all. i work with infinities on a daily basis.



That reminds me that practical joke we played on a visiting colleague who is a Muslim. We invited him to cheese fondue (a Swiss speciality) and told him a few hours later that it contained Kirschwasser, a strong spirit. You should have seen his face, lol.

So, from here it does not look rational at all. Not even if I were a theist. Why on heaven would God care?

Ciao

- viole

Your religion is very intolerant of other religions.

 

[viole]

Your religion is very intolerant of other religions.

Oh no. I have absolutely nothing against believing what you want. But please do it in your room and do not try to affect policy.

Because when your superstitions affect my life, and the secular life of others, or the treatment of animals or whatever else, then I will do my best to eliminate them and throw them where they deserve: the trash bin of history. Like we do with the vestiges of our infancy when we get older.

Ciao

- viole

 

[charlie sc]

That's exactly what I was talking about. I was just making the point that I don't know their true intent so the only thing remaining is whether there is any practical difference after implementation.

Considering other intentions or real intentions is important, what's not important and absolutely crazy is bringing this up for no reason or no good reason. Are you a conspiracy theorist?

And you have the authority to state unequivocally that that is the stated and explicit intent? That's very helpful. I didn't realize that you were in the government.

It's not my fault you're confused.

If the logic behind their stated intent is applied incompletely, it is certainly reasonable to wonder why.

Huh? Show evidence to the contrary...

I'm neither confused nor responding to a criticsm with a criticism. Your labeling avoids what I wrote. If you can't follow it, I can make it simper. Let me know if you need help.

Ugh. You were talking about premises and I did not see a deductive argument in place and it seemed as if you were using premise interchangeably with proposition.

If the intent is to reduce, then the intent is not to remove Unless by "reduce"you assume "reduce to nothing"; is that what you mean? If so, you should say that. Otherwise, this means that leaving some is acceptable. Please show me the error in that statement. Thanks.

Sure I will.

"If the intent is to reduce, then the intent is not to remove"

You can have multiple intentions, they can also overlap and some may take priority for more realistic expectations. That does not mean one is committing to any contrary world-view. As an analogy, let's say my goal is to reduce the poverty in the world, but I also I think poverty will necessarily exist because of the way capitalism works. That does not mean I think poverty is acceptable. You appear to be stuck in fallacious reasoning.

so I'm just wondering if you would be in favor of a legal attempt to do exactly what you said you are not against

Saying I'm not against an idea does not necessary mean I endorse laws. and I have no idea what you're talking about in bold. You are all but straight forward lol Maybe in your head you're straight forward.

It is actually very specific. If you claim "we're not at that stage yet." This would indicate that you know what stage "we" are at. Can you please define the "we" and explain the stages, indicating which one we are at and how "we" know we are at the next one. Thanks.

Jeez. I'm pretty sure humanity is at a stage where we find chattel slavery abhorrent, lol. Hence why, as far as I know, it's been abolished in all countries. When I saw we're at a certain stage for the treatment of cattle, I'm making a guess. I don't have any stage formulation as if I'm writing a book on this and coming up with some theory. However, if countries and cultures are noticing the abysmal treatment of cattle, then I'd like to think humanity is, in some sense, more empathetic towards the meat we eat. Are we at a stage where we treat the meat we eat as humanly as possible? No, obviously not. Are stages a thing, no. Lol. Jeez, your attempt to find some argument to stand on is awkward.

Well, you wrote "if that were the goal, we'd get there in one fell swoop. That sounds like nonsense." You say tht changing things in one fell swoop is nonsense leaving the incremental appraoch as the alternative. Did you have nother method in mind? Either this aw is an ends, or a step along the way unless you have another approach.Please explain.

Jesus. I don't have another in mind. From an evidential basis, we'll see if the banning of kosher meat catches on or not. I'd prefer it does, because I don't think our cattle deserves unnecessary suffering because your religion wants meat done a certain way lol. If you want to talk about having cattle or eating cattle as a concern, then that's a different topic, which I'd be pleased to talk about. However, don't let it interfere with this discussion.

Are you saying that laws don't follow a particular intent? That makes them capricious and I guess I prefer to see them as not so.

Laws are usually created to deter behaviour not reinforce behaviour. If everything was perfect, we wouldn't need laws. This law is trying to stop the unnecessary suffering of cattle. However, you seem to place another intent as though it's trying to stop all unnecessary suffering or create some egalitarian human/animal relationship. I cannot deny this may actually happen as a consequence of laws and their subsequent influences. Though, this is overreaching to any cogent argument. We'll be going off into the realm of pure assumption and speculation.

differing moral structures which stem from different sources lead to different potential intents. What is left is whether the practical differences turn a theoretical discussion into anything more.

Ok.

 

[rosends]

Well, me too. I am Swiss, after all. And it is about 250 Sfr if you get a picture of me driving through. But again, even if I stop, I would still call that traffic light stupid. You do the same?

Nope. It's the law.

I doubt that. I played that with my son, who is a vegetarian, and he just laughed. I wonder whether really has my genes, lol.

He is very understanding. I've seen vegetarians get very angry when this was done to them.

Feel free to deride it. I like it when people deride my position.

But that isn't my goal. Sorry.

Anyway, How can you hold a belief that is, by your own admission, irrational? This is much worse than infinites and it is me this time who cannot wrap her head around that.

If I could explain it, I would persuade others to believe. I can't. I also don't know how NOT to believe. Not saying I couldn't learn but as of now, I am just being honest about who I am.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is exactly what I said. You call it something because of how you understand the situation. You seem to resist someone agreeing with you. I'm not sure what "trait" I attributed to you as my assessment and your assessment of your position are the same. Do you always look for disagreement or argument when you present your position on things?

I'm not using any particular tactic and I already addressed the OP in a separate branch of this post, one which you didn't respond to because it wasn't about you.

The problem is that you keep trying to make this about my personal beliefs.


You do not seem to understand. The reason that other countries, not my country, not my beliefs, we are not discussing them, banned halal and kosher slaughter is because it puts the animal through unnecessary pain. Period. Your beliefs about why kosher slaughter is done in a certain manner do not matter, my beliefs of why kosher slaughter is done in a certain manner does not matter. It is all about the pain that the animals feel.

Now I gave you a chance to justify kosher slaughter, but you had none. All you had was an argument that is almost identical to those that are supporting female genital mutilation.


If you wish to complain about these laws, and seeing that I did post evidence that demonstrates that it is not humane, your only rational response would be to show that it is humane. You are not going to win by avoiding that obligation. Once again the practices were banned due to their inhumane nature and had nothing to do with religious beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But it really is about your beliefs, Subduction. You seem to believe that cattle deserve humane slaughter based not on facts, but beliefs.

The empathy involved is not based on fact but feeling. And these feelings are very similar to human faith.

Wrong again. I presented evidence that these are inhumane practices. Those that support them have claimed that they are just as humane, but they presented no evidence of that. And these laws are not based upon my beliefs. They are based upon the beliefs of the people where these laws have been enacted. I have only explained why they made these laws. The fact that I agree with them does not make the laws "about my beliefs". The laws would still exist even if I disagreed with them.

Do you seriously think that those that made these laws did so without investigation? Now that would be a prejudicial belief to me.

If you think that they have no business making such laws then the burden of proof is upon you. You either need to prove that kosher and halal slaughter are humane, Or, and this is a huge one, that animals do not merit humane treatment. Hint, defending the second will not make you look very good. You would have to deny some basic facts about the world to even begin to do so.

 

[rosends]

Considering other intentions or real intentions is important, what's not important and absolutely crazy is bringing this up for no reason or no good reason. Are you a conspiracy theorist?

Not generally but that was one of the concerns of the OP. I was simply addressing that idea.

It's not my fault you're confused.

Is that a confirmation?

Huh? Show evidence to the contrary...

The contrary of what? I didn't make any claim.

let's say my goal is to reduce the poverty in the world, but I also I think poverty will necessarily exist because of the way capitalism works. That does not mean I think poverty is acceptable. You appear to be stuck in fallacious reasoning.

This is a very good analogy and distinction. Are you then saying that there is an amount of animal suffering that will necessarily exist? And are you saying that if a system demands the existence of a certain amount, one should not move to change the system, but instead accept that it will exist?

Saying I'm not against an idea does not necessary mean I endorse laws. and I have no idea what you're talking about in bold. You are all but straight forward lol Maybe in your head you're straight forward.

Or, your head is on backwards. You are in favor of something so I want to know if you would be in favor of laws that mandate that. Pretty simple.

When I saw we're at a certain stage for the treatment of cattle, I'm making a guess. I don't have any stage formulation as if I'm writing a book on this and coming up with some theory. However, if countries and cultures are noticing the abysmal treatment of cattle, then I'd like to think humanity is, in some sense, more empathetic towards the meat we eat. Are we at a stage where we treat the meat we eat as humanly as possible? No, obviously not. Are stages a thing, no. Lol. Jeez, your attempt to find some argument to stand on is awkward.

So this is your guess and your assessment. Just checking. Thanks for the confirmation.

Jesus. I don't have another in mind.

So you have eliminated alternatives and present a position which I find as nonsense while considering the one I proposed as nonsense. OK. That clarifies.

Laws are usually created to deter behaviour not reinforce behaviour. If everything was perfect, we wouldn't need laws. This law is trying to stop the unnecessary suffering of cattle.

Well, I thought, "reduce." If the law wanted to stop it, maybe the law should have said to stop it totally.

However, you seem to place another intent as though it's trying to stop all unnecessary suffering or create some egalitarian human/animal relationship.

No, I have said nothing of the sort, but isn't that what you just said that the law is trying to do?