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

[charlie sc]

Since I was responding to someone else's need and you chose to respond, you are choosing to waster your time.

I asked for you to cite your experts. Unfortunately, my standards for evidence are much higher than yours. Perhaps this is my fault.

Can't. I'm on Atkins. Did you have anything to say on topic?

No.

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.

I wouldn't expect anyone to sift through a thread in a discussion for some link.

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?

Sure.

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 you to cite those experts; you cited the side saying shechita slaughter is humane done correctly.

You gave a citation that I critiqued and for good reason. I wasn't critiquing another link because you did not give another link.

You then proceeded to mention both sides. I'm only talking about one, because that's the link you gave. So, I have no idea why you mentioned the other side.

That link appeals to authority because there are no references(no evidence) and it only says what the supposed experts say. I don't take appeal to authority sources seriously, especially in a debate, because they offer nothing of value. You gave nothing of value in this discussion to me. Other people, and I'm sure you get them in abundance here, will find nothing wrong with appealing to authority.

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'll show you the type of data I prefer. Here's one such scientific study done that found animals slaughtered ritualistically are more stressed than non-ritualistic slaughtering Analysis of Stress Indicators for Evaluation of Animal Welfare and Meat Quality in Traditional and Jewish Slaughtering. Cortisol and catecholamine were significantly higher in the shechita exsanguination phase than non-ritualistic slaughtered cattle. This means they were extremely stressed during this process. To go further, the Jewish farms chose cattle that were docile. So, before they were slaughtered, they had less cortisol and catecholamine than the non-ritualistic farms. This means that they were calmer cattle to begin with but were extremely stressed by the end.

 

[sooda]

I asked for you to cite your experts. Unfortunately, my standards for evidence are much higher than yours. Perhaps this is my fault.


No.


I wouldn't expect anyone to sift through a thread in a discussion for some link.


Sure.

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 you to cite those experts; you cited the side saying shechita slaughter is humane done correctly.

You gave a citation that I critiqued and for good reason. I wasn't critiquing another link because you did not give another link.

You then proceeded to mention both sides. I'm only talking about one, because that's the link you gave. So, I have no idea why you mentioned the other side.

That link appeals to authority because there are no references and it only says what the supposed experts say. I don't take appeal to authority sources seriously, especially in a debate, because they offer nothing of value. You gave nothing of value in this discussion to me. Other people, and I'm sure you get them in abundance here, will find nothing wrong with appealing to authority.


I'll show you the type of data I prefer. Here's one such scientific study done that found animals slaughtered ritualistically are more stressed than non-ritualistic slaughtering Analysis of Stress Indicators for Evaluation of Animal Welfare and Meat Quality in Traditional and Jewish Slaughtering. Cortisol and catecholamine were significantly higher in the exsanguination phase than non-ritualistic slaughtered cattle. This means they were extremely stressed during this process. To go further, the Jewish farms chose cattle that were docile. So, before they were slaughtered, they had less cortisol and catecholamine than the non-ritualistic farms.

Interesting links...….

 

[rosends]

I asked for you to cite your experts. Unfortunately, my standards for evidence are much higher than yours. Perhaps this is my fault.

Since I have made no claims that require any standard, you would have a hard time determining my standard.

I wouldn't expect anyone to sift through a thread in a discussion for some link.

I would expect anyone who wades in to a pre-existing discussion to be up to date on the various parts of it. If not, I would expect the person to read up before saying anything. But maybe my standards for intelligent conversation are higher than yours.

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 you to cite those experts; you cited the side saying shechita slaughter is humane done correctly.

Because all I could do was cite the experts on that particular side of the issue since it is the one I referenced and found when I searched for a video. There was an expert on the other side which I linked to but that would require that you sift and read. You asked if I could "The various experts on that particular side" so I did just that. I linked to the website I found in my search and listed the people on that site who spoke for (as you asked) "that side."

You gave a citation that I critiqued and for good reason. I wasn't critiquing another link because you did not give another link.

But you didn't critique the link. You misstated my position claiming "You claimed THIS site was an expert site" which, as I pointed out, i never did.

You then proceeded to mention both sides. I'm only talking about one, because that's the link you gave. So, I have no idea why you mentioned the other side.

Only because I had already linked to another site which presented a speaker for each position. I didn't reiterate anything about the other side because it wasn't relevant to what I found when doing the search for this particular video.

I'll show you the type of data I prefer. Here's one such scientific study done that found animals slaughtered ritualistically are more stressed than non-ritualistic slaughtering Analysis of Stress Indicators for Evaluation of Animal Welfare and Meat Quality in Traditional and Jewish Slaughtering. Cortisol and catecholamine were significantly higher in the shechita exsanguination phase than non-ritualistic slaughtered cattle. This means they were extremely stressed during this process. To go further, the Jewish farms chose cattle that were docile. So, before they were slaughtered, they had less cortisol and catecholamine than the non-ritualistic farms. This means that they were calmer cattle to begin with but were extremely stressed by the end.

That's very nice. If I were engaging in any sort of debate about kosher slaughter vs. any other, I would go through that study and, no doubt, proffer other studies.

 

[rosends]

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.

I understand what you say. I was just willing to provide the video so that any claim that said video didn't exist could be abandoned. As a side note, I don't think I made any claim about any calming process -- that might have been someone else.

 

[charlie sc]

But you didn't critique the link. You misstated my position claiming "You claimed THIS site was an expert site" which, as I pointed out, i never did.

Sigh. Bellow is what you said about experts when replying to someone else.

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 you for citations. Bellow is what you replied and linked.

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)
Kosher Slaughter: Setting The Record Straight - OU Kosher

I don't know what's wrong with you.

That's very nice. If I were engaging in any sort of debate about kosher slaughter vs. any other, I would go through that study and, no doubt, proffer other studies.

I'm sure you would.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand what you say. I was just willing to provide the video so that any claim that said video didn't exist could be abandoned. As a side note, I don't think I made any claim about any calming process -- that might have been someone else.

Probably was the OP. If you link a video I will watch it. I watched videos to the contrary. I will have to double check to see if some Muslims are rethinking what is and what is not halal. Perhaps some of the Jews should do the same for what is and what is not kosher.

 

[rosends]

Probably was the OP. If you link a video I will watch it. I watched videos to the contrary. I will have to double check to see if some Muslims are rethinking what is and what is not halal. Perhaps some of the Jews should do the same for what is and what is not kosher.

This is the video. Again -- not for the squeamish.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is the video. Again -- not for the squeamish.

And even that video shows the animal noticeably struggling after its throat is cut. And that is when "done right". I think that is what is being objected to.

 

[rosends]

How do people justify a distinction between mammals and fish in terms of killing? Have any countries passed laws regulating how fish are killed (not about preventing inadvertently catching dolphins but how to kill the ones intended to be killed)? Is there a belief that fish don't feel pain or suffer in the same way (that was something I was told the first time I went fishing..."they don't feel the hook in their faces" -- I never quite believed that)?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How do people justify a distinction between mammals and fish in terms of killing? Have any countries passed laws regulating how fish are killed (not about preventing inadvertently catching dolphins but how to kill the ones intended to be killed)? Is there a belief that fish don't feel pain or suffer in the same way (that was something I was told the first time I went fishing..."they don't feel the hook in their faces" -- I never quite believed that)?

Like all things it is a judgment call. We tend to be more empathetic to those that we are more closely related to. Since we are much more closely related to other mammals than fish that may explain why we care a bit less about fish. Also we do not have the ability to judge as well. How does one tell the pain level of fish? And then think of what we do to lobsters. Drop them live into a potful of boiling water. Our relationship to them is even more distant and we have no clue as to their pain indicators. I can see some merit in being a vegan, but I also know that people are omnivores and if we ignore part of our natural diet there can be negative results.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

However there are regulations on fishing. How fish can be caught, baited, stored, etc. Also when the fish are killed, it's usually just swift beheading.

 

[rosends]

However there are regulations on fishing. How fish can be caught, baited, stored, etc. Also when the fish are killed, it's usually just swift beheading.

I guess that gets to the heart of my question -- are there laws about this? Can fish be caught with a hook and thrown on the deck? Wouldn't there be pain and/or suffering? As SZ pointed out, isn't boiling lobsters alive logically an inhumane practice? Is the underlying premise that fish DON'T feel pain and is this proven or just a guess? The next question would be about birds (I'm not moving to bugs just yet). If there is a law about one animal, why not others? I'm just trying to understand the method of selecting to what it is applied.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I guess that gets to the heart of my question -- are there laws about this? Can fish be caught with a hook and thrown on the deck? Wouldn't there be pain and/or suffering? As SZ pointed out, isn't boiling lobsters alive logically an inhumane practice? Is the underlying premise that fish DON'T feel pain and is this proven or just a guess? The next question would be about birds (I'm not moving to bugs just yet). If there is a law about one animal, why not others? I'm just trying to understand the method of selecting to what it is applied.

I can't remember the name of the extreme sect (cult?) where people have to even go so far as to brush off an area that they are going to sit on, lest they crush a bug. Sooner or later it is simply not practical. As I have pointed out it is all a mater of relative humaneness and what we can reasonably do.

Aha! I love Google, I was close in my spelling and it did the rest:

Jainism - Wikipedia

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Yes, there are fishing laws. Fishing is under the same type as hunting, however, so comparing it to livestock slaughter is quite uneven. It has also been determined scientifically that fish don't feel pain, primarily because they lack a developed neocortex and can't process the sensation. Lastly yes, there are also laws regarding poultry housing and slaughter.

 

[Ancient Soul]

Who are you to tell me what my spirituality should be???? Are YOU God? Kosher slaughtering is no more inhumane than a stun gun and a bullet.

Ha, I never told you any such thing. You are free to follow whatever stupid man made placebo for true spirituality you want. I just pointed out that it is just another stupid man made belief that has NOTHING to do with being truly spiritual.

And you can protest all you want but "kosher slaughter" IS cruel and inhumane. It is a lie to say otherwise.

 

[rosends]

Yes, there are fishing laws. Fishing is under the same type as hunting, however, so comparing it to livestock slaughter is quite uneven. It has also been determined scientifically that fish don't feel pain, primarily because they lack a developed neocortex and can't process the sensation. Lastly yes, there are also laws regarding poultry housing and slaughter.

This article is 5 years more recent and says that the scientific evidence is that fish do feel pain and it discusses the expert claims on both sides. Interestingly, it has this quote, "In 2013, the American Veterinary Medical Association published new guidelines for the euthanasia of animals, which included the following statements: “Suggestions that finfish responses to pain merely represent simple reflexes have been refuted. … the preponderance of accumulated evidence supports the position that finfish should be accorded the same considerations as terrestrial vertebrates in regard to relief from pain.”

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

That article was all over the place, and noted a few points where the scientific community is at odds with whether they can or cannot feel pain. The article takes the bias of "they can, those scientists just haven't come around yet."

The article does note, however, that fish farms slaughter their fish humanely. So whether they can or can't feel pain is somewhat irrelevant; in the same situation as livestock, the humane methods is used by law. Personal fishing is still on the same grounds as hunting, yet still has expectations and regulations.

 

[rosends]

That article was all over the place, and noted a few points where the scientific community is at odds with whether they can or cannot feel pain. The article takes the bias of "they can, those scientists just haven't come around yet."

The article does note, however, that fish farms slaughter their fish humanely. So whether they can or can't feel pain is somewhat irrelevant; in the same situation as livestock, the humane methods is used by law. Personal fishing is still on the same grounds as hunting, yet still has expectations and regulations.

Only on fish farms in a very select set of countries. I would expect other countries to adopt the killing methods for their farms and maybe even outlaw open sea fishing which is not (to my mind) like a single hunter stalking an animal, but a massive collection on an industrial scale.

 

[charlie sc]

I love how this has gone on to fish.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

And you can protest all you want but "kosher slaughter" IS cruel and inhumane. It is a lie to say otherwise.

Give me your very best reason why you say this. Be specific.