Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Ranchers are far from being fans of gray wolves (timber wolves where I grew up). Wolves are permanently gone from much of their former habitat. Though I am not sure if gray wolves were ever big in California.
Are you saying you're questioning the validity of the videos?
Can you cite those experts?
In kosher slaughter, the animal is specifically required to be conscious. Perhaps those who are more knowledgeable than I am can comment more on that.
I'm simply saying that the videos that you are watching online are all of abuses, such as those that occurred at Agriprocessors.
No, they're being slaughtered while they're conscious. Why, because your holy book says so? Legal aspects of ritual slaughter - Wikipedia
When doing the search, I found this site which lists all sorts of experts (to their standards -- I haven't checked anyone's bona fides here either, but earlier, I had posted a site which gave both sides' experts an attributed chance to speak)
This site does not look good or expert-like. I saw no references,I saw appeal to authorities and even a rhetorical question... and there's definitely a conflict of interest. Look at the company's website.
I saw non-fallacious appeals to authority on both sides of the issue and the websites which cited those particular authorities on both sides were partisan sites selecting their experts to substantiate their positions. The earlier site I had listed (a few pages back) presented a single authority for each side and presented their degrees/qualifications.
Tu quoque again. I've noticed this is common in this thread.
Actually I said that the site lists all kinds of experts (Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Patty Judge, Dr. Henry Lawson, the USDA veterinarian at the plant, Rabbi Dr. I.M. Levinger, a veterinarian, an animal welfare and handling specialist, Studies done by Dr. H. H. Dukes at the Cornell University School of Veterinary Medicine), not that it is an expert site ("I found this site which lists all sorts of experts") and clarified that they were considered experts according to the standard of the site, not to any standard I applied. It would be best if you limited your responses to what I actually wrote.
I'm looking for studies done, not what people said. Unfortunately, defending practices that seem harmful is not an easy task. We can tell when another being is suffering because we are empathetic beings, most of the time anyway. I don't need an expert to tell me a child or dog is suffering after someone kicks them. Your position is that, I assume, Kosher slaughtering done the correct way avoids any, or most, unnecessary suffering. If you're asking people not to use their empathetic side and instead follow reason, you'll have to do better than this person or that person said this. I'm not going to sift through studies to find what you want me to find. Bring a study here and stop wasting time.
This time I said tu quoque, not fallacy. I said this because you're learning towards it. We're talking about the claim mentioned above, not about the other side. Yet, it seems when confronted, you have to bring up the other side as if it'll somehow lesson your burden of proof or elevate your position.
As I was referencing a specific website and not making an argument on my own, I was limited to the one study that was listed there.
What I can't figure out is why people keep assuming my position and arguing with what they assume? My position is that I found the video which another person asked for and when I simply retell what that and other websites (on both sides of the issue) list, I am taken to task for their argumentation.
Again, telling me what I am supposedly asking. I was very clear about what I was doing -- pointing out that I found a video that another person said he would want to see. When asked to cite the experts all I can do is give ones mentioned on the websites that make the argument.
When I don't criticize anything, I am leaning towards a certain criticism? If you would have gone to the website I mentioned earlier, you would see that I presented a site that had both sides and I took no stand on it. It seems more productive to respond to what people present, not to what we think they mean or expect that they should be doing.
You're wasting my time.
Great, you found a video. Want a cookie?
You said, "The various experts on that particular side say that it isn't a reflection of any feeling while the experts on the other say that it is." I asked for the citation. You gave me one and I critiqued it. This should have been the end of the story but you continued if you were only saying what you saw from other websites. Again, stop wasting time.
Link it. Don't expect me to sift through this whole thread.
I asked for a citation, you gave me one. I critiqued it and then you started some tu quoque argument. What's wrong with you?
I like good data, not arguments from appeals to authority. You gave a bad website and I told you. So why are you continuing? Either give some published papers or stop wasting time.
Since I was responding to someone else's need and you chose to respond, you are choosing to waster your time.
Can't. I'm on Atkins. Did you have anything to say on topic?
You asked for something and I said that I can't do any more than show what the referred to site had. If that's not enough for you then that's great. That's a flaw in THEIR method, not mine. Respond to them and move along. If there is nothing to see here then you respond only to see yourself type.
I shall continue to lower my expectations then. At first, I expected you to read. Now I won't expect you to search or sift.
What wa the tu quoque argument? I didn't claim that anyone else had committed the same error as I was being criticized of having committed. Can you show me where I did?
I like good data also and if I'm arguing about something, I tend to cite it. But when I am giving information ["there is a website which has people it considers experts who make contrary arguments"], I give the information and let others decide what they want to do with it. Some people would investigate it, or take it for what it is superficially worth. Others, it seems, would shoot the messenger. Keep assuming what I'm doing. Keep being wrong. C'est la vie.
I agree. You make a good point here.
True, and I mentioned that in the video I watched it took 2-3 seconds and I didn't know what the animal felt there. So far, so good.
Yes, I saw that. What troubled me, though, was that it reported (and, yes, I haven't confirmed) an acceptable number as a failure rate. But that's a side thought.
Absolutely true. It was a strange omssion.
I completely understand. I refrained from posting the video because I am squeamish and thought others might be, but I can provide the link if you would like.
I am not squeamish, but videos are problematic. They will only tend to show what we both acknowledge. That when done correctly stunning is instantaneous and when done correctly kosher slaughter is a matter of seconds. Both have their failures that make for very hard to watch videos. The problem with kosher slaughter is that even ideally it is not as humane as stunning. Why not combine the two? A quick stun will make the cow unconscious, its heart will still act the same when the cut is made. It could be thought of the last bit of the calming process that you said existed. The way that cows are immobilized for the cut makes the application of a bolt to the head almost foolproof. If you see stunning videos you can see that the bolt device is trying to hit an at times moving target. With the application of both techniques kosher slaughter would be more humane than stunning of a steer that is not restrained.