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

[charlie sc]

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

Is that a confirmation?

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

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?

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.


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


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.

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

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

It seems like we're talking past each other. So, I'll go to the original question.

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

What true intent are you talking about and what do you mean there is no way to suss it out?

 

[rosends]

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.

That's a fine claim. While it does raise certain questions, those aren't really material. What was being discussed was the reasoning for the banning and a statement was made misrepresenting kosher slaughter.

It is all about the pain that the animals feel.

I believe that the truth of that statement was the question being raised by the OP. I can ask you the same question I have asked others, though, just for kicks:
If even stunning an animal might lead to pain and
if the goal is to remove pain
Then wouldn't the banning of all animal slaughter me a logical end?

Now I gave you a chance to justify kosher slaughter, but you had none.

Not exactly. I pesented none s none was relevant to the point I was making.

All you had was an argument that is almost identical to those that are supporting female genital mutilation.

I would say "completely identical" had I made it. But I didn't.

If you wish to complain about these laws,

I don't, and haven't.

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.

No, my rational response is to address errors in fact and choose to enter what you see as the main argument only when I can be assure that the participants (as in any productive discussion) share vocabulary nd values.

You are not going to win by avoiding that obligation.

I don't see any obligation. You might think one exists, but it doesn't.

Once again the practices were banned due to their inhumane nature and had nothing to do with religious beliefs.

Yes, that is indeed how you see it. Others might see it differently, thinking that all slaughter is inhumane so all should be forbidden. (I haven't researched this source or its claims, but the artcile makes some interesting claims about stunning and pain There will be blood )

 

[rosends]

It seems like we're talking past each other. So, I'll go to the original question.


What true intent are you talking about and what do you mean there is no way to suss it out?

The OP seemed to imply that the underlying reasoning for the laws is to force Jews out. I might have misread that, but that's what I thought. My feeling is that there will never be any way to know what lawmakers were REALLY thinking but the end result ends up the same.

 

[Cooky]

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

The irony meter just exploded. Congratulations.

 

[charlie sc]

The OP seemed to imply that the underlying reasoning for the laws is to force Jews out.

That's hilarious. Is there any evidence for this alternate explanation for this particular law?

My feeling is that there will never be any way to know what lawmakers were REALLY thinking

You're right, there's not only no real way to know what lawmakers were REALLY thinking there's also no way to know what anyone else is REALLY thinking. It's even difficult for individuals themselves to really understand what their motives and aspirations are. There's a whole psychology behind it.

end result ends up the same.

They're not the same. Kicking someone out is not the same as halting a questionable tradition. You can't equate the two.

Btw, to you, I am Jewish and I don't care. I have an uncle and aunt who are Jewish and they eat pork on occasion. They go to some reformed synagogue.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's a fine claim. While it does raise certain questions, those aren't really material. What was being discussed was the reasoning for the banning and a statement was made misrepresenting kosher slaughter.

I believe that the truth of that statement was the question being raised by the OP. I can ask you the same question I have asked others, though, just for kicks:
If even stunning an animal might lead to pain and
if the goal is to remove pain
Then wouldn't the banning of all animal slaughter me a logical end?

Not exactly. I pesented none s none was relevant to the point I was making.

I would say "completely identical" had I made it. But I didn't.


I don't, and haven't.

No, my rational response is to address errors in fact and choose to enter what you see as the main argument only when I can be assure that the participants (as in any productive discussion) share vocabulary nd values.

I don't see any obligation. You might think one exists, but it doesn't.

Yes, that is indeed how you see it. Others might see it differently, thinking that all slaughter is inhumane so all should be forbidden. (I haven't researched this source or its claims, but the artcile makes some interesting claims about stunning and pain There will be blood )

I see that you still are having trouble debating properly. Telling falsehoods and excessively breaking up posts so that you are in effect quoting out of context is not way to win a debate. And of course you are merely using a Gish Gallop here. I would suggest that you do not do that. When you Gish refuting one point refutes them all. Since your post is merely falsehood and misrepresentations it automatically fails, but lets go over one of your many in this mess:

"

Let's get back to the basics. No one is saying that slaughter has to be painless. No one has claimed that slaughter is painless. What is claimed, and even your article seems to support this, is that stunning leads to less. pain. Of course much of your article deals with a red herring. Its claims come from electrical stunning where large animals tend to be bolt stunned. It makes it useless for this debate.

So once again, the point is to be more humane, not painless since that may not be possible. Halal and Kosher slaughter are demonstrably more painful than traditional methods. That is why it has been banned by several countries and will probably be banned by more.

 

[rosends]

That's hilarious. Is there any evidence for this alternate explanation for this particular law?

I don't have one. You would have to ask the original poster.

You're right, there's not only no real way to know what lawmakers were REALLY thinking there's also no way to know what anyone else is REALLY thinking. It's even difficult for individuals themselves to really understand what their motives and aspirations are. There's a whole psychology behind it.

True and one could spend a lot of time trying to figure out what he, himself, and others might really have been thinking but it doesn't seem productive in this case.

They're not the same. Kicking someone out is not the same as halting a questionable tradition. You can't equate the two.

The effect -- not kicking out (because that isn't happening) but creating a society which is increasingly unwelcome to adherents, is the same regardless of the motivation for the laws.

Btw, to you, I am Jewish and I don't care. I have an uncle and aunt who are Jewish and they eat pork on occasion. They go to some reformed synagogue.

I'm not sure why you are telling me this. It isn't really useful or important to me.

 

[rosends]

I see that you still are having trouble debating properly. Telling falsehoods and excessively breaking up posts so that you are in effect quoting out of context is not way to win a debate. And of course you are merely using a Gish Gallop here. I would suggest that you do not do that. When you Gish refuting one point refutes them all. Since your post is merely falsehood and misrepresentations it automatically fails, but lets go over one of your many in this mess:

"

Let's get back to the basics. No one is saying that slaughter has to be painless. No one has claimed that slaughter is painless. What is claimed, and even your article seems to support this, is that stunning leads to less. pain. Of course much of your article deals with a red herring. Its claims come from electrical stunning where large animals tend to be bolt stunned. It makes it useless for this debate.

So once again, the point is to be more humane, not painless since that may not be possible. Halal and Kosher slaughter are demonstrably more painful than traditional methods. That is why it has been banned by several countries and will probably be banned by more.

You don't actually cite any falsehoods. My favorite part is when you say "let's go over one of your many in this mess" and then you have nothing. So thanks for the vote of confidence. Also, thanks for not actually addressing what I wrote. Again.

If you wish to discuss issues like "humane" and perceptions of pain, then you can write to the author of this article Viewpoints: The right way to kill an animal which presents both sides and makes all sorts of claims on both sides. Since this was not my goal (nor my obligation) I won't weigh in on it.

 

[charlie sc]

I don't have one. You would have to ask the original poster.

Alright, then I'll take that as you don't think there is an alternate explanation or intent. Please, correct me if I'm wrong.

True and one could spend a lot of time trying to figure out what he, himself, and others might really have been thinking but it doesn't seem productive in this case.

Yes, that's why I have no idea why you were talking about true intent as if it has some value.

The effect -- not kicking out (because that isn't happening) but creating a society which is increasingly unwelcome to adherents, is the same regardless of the motivation for the laws.
I'm not sure why you are telling me this. It isn't really useful or important to me.

Not all Jews care is my point and the ones that do are overly sensitive. We aren't talking about persecution, we're talking about reducing the unnecessary suffering of animals. Though it seems like you want to equate the two.

Perhaps the people who are empathetic towards animals are the ones that feel unwelcome, because they let religious people slaughter animals inhumanly? Who is right then and who feels unwelcome?

Bleh.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You don't actually cite any falsehoods. My favorite part is when you say "let's go over one of your many in this mess" and then you have nothing. So thanks for the vote of confidence. Also, thanks for not actually addressing what I wrote. Again.

If you wish to discuss issues like "humane" and perceptions of pain, then you can write to the author of this article Viewpoints: The right way to kill an animal which presents both sides and makes all sorts of claims on both sides. Since this was not my goal (nor my obligation) I won't weigh in on it.

Sorry, a quote disappeared somehow. That was an error on my part.

But let's forget your endless personal attacks, which only demonstrate a lack of substance, and real with this article. The writer knows very little about physiology. First he believes that a lack of blood causes instant unconsciousness. It clearly does not. Your previous link dispelled that idea. The brain takes a while to react to the loss of blood. Cells have to run low on oxygen to cease functioning and that is not instantaneous. Second we do know how quickly people can be knocked out by physical stunning. It happens quite often. Watch some boxing or MMA if you want to see it in action. Lastly he weakly used the example of misapplied stuns, which do happen while ignoring the just as likely botched throat slicing that can happen with kosher slaughter.

Right now the burden of proof appears to be in those defending these practices. How about an open tour of two facilities. One using traditional methods and one using kosher slaughter?

 

[rosends]

Alright, then I'll take that as you don't think there is an alternate explanation or intent. Please, correct me if I'm wrong.

I think the original poster thinks that there is an alternate explanation. What I think is irrelevant. When I enter a discussion I make sure to limit my conversation to those points that I feel I have something productive to contribute about. This doesn't mean that I don't have other thoughts, just that there is no call or need for me to contribute them. If this smacks people as inability, then that's fine. I prefer just not to opine and stay silent on many issues.

Yes, that's why I have no idea why you were talking about true intent as if it has some value.

That was my point. Because we can not discern any true intent, we can discuss the effects, but arguing the cause and imputing motives doesn't seem productive.

Not all Jews care is my point and the ones that do are overly sensitive. We aren't talking about persecution, we're talking about reducing the unnecessary suffering of animals. Though it seems like you want to equate the two.

I don't recall saying anything about all Jews. Your characterization of those who care as overly sensitive is a matter of opinion. Those people might see this as a matter of persecution and say that others aren't being sensitive enough. Since I have not presented my position on this, assuming what I am doing seems misplaced.

Perhaps the people who are empathetic towards animals are the ones that feel unwelcome, because they let religious people slaughter animals inhumanly? Who is right then and who feels unwelcome?

A very good point. The concerns over any group's sensitivities becomes its own slippery slope. It seems to me to be the case that in any situation, one can find someone who is offended by something.

 

[Cooky]

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.

Show me the scientific evidence that proves that it matters what animals feel before they die. If you can prove for a fact, that humane ways of slaughtering beef makes a difference to me somehow, then I'll join you.

...Until then I suggest everyone view this as the Religion of Progress instilling it's doctrine into the personal lives of those living in the countries where these laws were passed.

 

[rosends]

Sorry, a quote disappeared somehow. That was an error on my part.

But let's forget your endless personal attacks, which only demonstrate a lack of substance, and real with this article. The writer knows very little about physiology. First he believes that a lack of blood causes instant unconsciousness. It clearly does not. Your previous link dispelled that idea. The brain takes a while to react to the loss of blood. Cells have to run low on oxygen to cease functioning and that is not instantaneous. Second we do know how quickly people can be knocked out by physical stunning. It happens quite often. Watch some boxing or MMA if you want to see it in action. Lastly he weakly used the example of misapplied stuns, which do happen while ignoring the just as likely botched throat slicing that can happen with kosher slaughter.

Right now the burden of proof appears to be in those defending these practices. How about an open tour of two facilities. One using traditional methods and one using kosher slaughter?

Thanks for the invite but I'll pass. I faint at the sound of blood. If you have medical insight which trumps that author, I would suggest that you contact him about his claims and address his various medical degrees. As I have none, I can't present an opinion. I quoted authors on both sides of the issues and haven't checked the bona fides of either.

 

[charlie sc]

What I think is irrelevant.

I asked you but you don't have to answer. That's fine. However, on this topic your reply is fairly revealing.

That was my point. Because we can not discern any true intent, we can discuss the effects, but arguing the cause and imputing motives doesn't seem productive.

I agree. What you said was confusing to me because I took it another way and that's the impression I took from it.

I don't recall saying anything about all Jews. Your characterization of those who care as overly sensitive is a matter of opinion. Those people might see this as a matter of persecution and say that others aren't being sensitive enough. Since I have not presented my position on this, assuming what I am doing seems misplaced.

You're right, I don't know your position, at all. However, I was leading from the interpretation of the OP.

A very good point. The concerns over any group's sensitivities becomes its own slippery slope. It seems to me to be the case that in any situation, one can find someone who is offended by something.

Indeed.

 

[rosends]

I asked you but you don't have to answer. That's fine. However, on this topic your reply is fairly revealing.

I hope that it reveals that I am careful about exactly what I speak about and when I choose not to engage. If anyone draws other conclusions about my position, then that is a fault that lies squarely on that person's shoulders. My saying nothing is a reflection of my wish to say nothing.

 

[Cooky]

And what these new laws reveal are a gross disregard for both liberty and religious freedom.

 

[charlie sc]

I hope that it reveals that I am careful about exactly what I speak about and when I choose not to engage. If anyone draws other conclusions about my position, then that is a fault that lies squarely on that person's shoulders. My saying nothing is a reflection of my wish to say nothing.

Ok, well, your careful engaging in this topic has been a waste of time. I thought I was debating you and your ideas, not just the OP. The OP can defend herself. I’ll draw my own conclusion about you, thank you very much. Since we, apparently, aren’t talking about our ideas, there’s no point discussing anything any further.

 

[Cooky]

Ok, well, your careful engaging in this topic has been a waste of time. I thought I was debating you and your ideas, not just the OP. The OP can defend herself. I’ll draw my own conclusion about you, thank you very much. Since we, apparently, aren’t talking about our ideas, there’s no point discussing anything any further.

Were you assuming Rosends would consider this law persecution, and you are now upset that he hasn't expressed those views as you hoped he would?

 

[charlie sc]

Were you assuming Rosends would consider this law persecution, and you are now upset that he hasn't expressed those views as you hoped he would?

No, I’m annoyed that this was a waste of time. In fact, I’m glad if that was the case. However, I doubt it.

Not revealing one’s own ideas is a very safe position to hold, especially when you’re defending someone else. At any time, said person can pull out. This is perfectly fine to do but that doesn’t mean I have to like it. I actually find it a very cowardly tactic.

 

[rosends]

Ok, well, your careful engaging in this topic has been a waste of time. I thought I was debating you and your ideas, not just the OP. The OP can defend herself. I’ll draw my own conclusion about you, thank you very much. Since we, apparently, aren’t talking about our ideas, there’s no point discussing anything any further.

That's all fair and correct. I was not here to debate my ideas. I entered simply to correct an error that someone made and to explain to the OP that the concerns presented had no practical/useful way of being parsed.