EU Court upholds Belgian ban on kosher and halal slaughter

[Subduction Zone]

Yes exactly. Just like most movements of the animal are involuntary when it's throat is slit.

Do you know how deep the cut is? It's not just thin cut after which you let the animal run around for 15 minutes.



btw how do you feel about meat from hunting?

Not even close. What makes you think that an animal instantly loses consciousness when the latter happens? With a chicken the blow that cuts off their head is all but guaranteed to knock them unconscious at the same time. And I am fully aware of how deep the cut is.

There is a difference between autonomous and conscious movements.

Ask a Scientist: Why do chickens run around when their heads are cut off?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

How reliable are biased "experts"? I have seen videos of kosher and halal slaughter. I will not link any, but it is clear that the animal is conscious for some time after its neck is sliced open. An unconscious animal would not feel any pain. Neither is a pretty sight to watch. And there are I am sure failed stunnings I have no idea what the stats are on those. Perhaps that is the basis of the claims of the Jewish experts. But without a clear link it is hard to say.

I have seen the same or similar videos, and I was horrified. Like you, I won't link them -- it's not worth doing. But I could see easily the horrible suffering that animals can go through as they bleed out, often taking many minutes, with their throats slit open and unable to draw breath. I'm not a fan of halal and kosher killing. It may have been the best thing a long time ago, before we had means to stun an animal into unconsciousness in a second. But it is not anymore.

 

[JustGeorge]

"Animal slaughter is very dirty work. Although cows, sheep, pigs and chickens are the main victims, vulnerable humans are also being exploited and abused in secret. Psychologists say it’s causing post-traumatic stress disorder, perpetration-induced traumatic stress and a range of other horrifying syndromes. Unsurprisingly, studies have found that slaughterhouse work is connected to higher incidents of domestic violence, alcohol and drug abuse."

- Opinion: Abattoir workers are the forgotten frontline victims at the heart of the coronavirus crisis

- The harrowing psychological toll of slaughterhouse work

This happened at our city's slaughterhouse:

Tyson fires 7 at Iowa pork plant after COVID betting inquiry

As Covid made its appearance in the city, the upper management started making bets on how many of their employees would fall ill...

 

[Secret Chief]

And this is a a black and white fallacy. One can eat animals and still strive to be humane. There have been some truly barbaric ways of eating animals. Eating live monkey brains is still a real thing. Tell me that that is no different from stunning an animal before slaughter.

I really don't like going down the fallacy route. I'm sure there's one for every sentence uttered. For instance, I could counter with "Your post is an argument to moderation - the fallacy that the truth is a compromise between two opposite positions." (lifted from a very long list of fallacies on Wikipedia). But like I say, I'm not into that whole schtick.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I really don't like going down the fallacy route. I'm sure there's one for every sentence uttered. For instance, I could counter with "Your post is an argument to moderation - the fallacy that the truth is a compromise between two opposite positions." (lifted from a very long list of fallacies on Wikipedia). But like I say, I'm not into that whole schtick.

Fine, don't go with the formal names of errors. Your error in this case still exists.

 

[Secret Chief]

Fine, don't go with the formal names of errors. Your error in this case still exists.

As does yours.

 

[Left Coast]

The answer is in your post. And we are evolved to be omnivores. This is a problem that will likely eventually be solved with technology. Right now animal slaughter is not going away for quite some time. The practical and proper approach is to minimize suffering.

We can minimize suffering by not killing animals for food.

 

[Revoltingest]

As does yours.

You're entirely denying that a view exists, ie, killing animals
& eating them, while striving to do so with minimal agony.
Disagree all you want.
But you cannot claim that this view doesn't exist, or is dishonest.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

We can minimize suffering by not killing animals for food.

You're entirely denying that a view exists, ie, killing animals
& eating them, while striving to do so with minimal agony.
Disagree all you want.
But you cannot claim that this view doesn't exist, or is dishonest.

It is entirely clear that we humans have evolved to be omnivorous animals -- we eat animal and vegetable both. This is apparent in our dentition, in our digestive tracts, and in the way in which we extract the amino acids that we require in order to make the proteins that we require for building, sustaining and repairing our bodies.

Yes, it is possible to construct vegetarian diets that can provide what we need -- but in fact it's actually quite difficult, and if you are living a loca-vore kind of life, close to impossible in many places throughout the world.

So, some people -- likely most -- are going to continue to eat animal proteins. This will very likely expand into eating animals most of us don't consider at the moment (tasty insects and slugs and the like). Or the very delicious, lobster-like bugs found around Australia.


As that is the case, I think Revoltingest is quite right -- since we're going to eat animals, let's at least despatch them with some concern for their suffering.

 

[Secret Chief]

You're entirely denying that a view exists, ie, killing animals
& eating them, while striving to do so with minimal agony.
Disagree all you want.
But you cannot claim that this view doesn't exist, or is dishonest.

I was just pointing out two fallacy "errors" being in opposition to each other, which is suggestive to me that fallacy categories aren't some sort of intellectual gold standard that some seem to think they are. One says shades of grey is fallacious, one says black and white is fallacious. Which fallacy is not a fallacy? Or maybe that's the fallacy of fallacies.

 

[Revoltingest]

I was just pointing out there are two fallacies in opposition to each other, which is suggestive to me that fallacy categories aren't some sort of intellectual gold standard that some seem to think they are. One says shades of grey is fallacious, one says black and white is fallacious. Which fallacy is not a fallacy? Or maybe that's the fallacy of fallacies.

I don't understand that.
I expressed a view.
It honestly exists.
Do you agree or disagree?

 

[Secret Chief]

I don't understand that.

Your quote of mine referred to my quote in regard to fallacies; not a reference to anything you had posted.

I expressed a view.
It honestly exists.
Do you agree or disagree?

I agree you have an opinion, which is honestly held of course. Is that what you mean?

 

[Revoltingest]

I agree you have an opinion, which is honestly held of course. Is that what you mean?

Yes, exactly.
It wasn't clear, but now that's settled.

 

[Shaul]

Or...

This whole thing isn’t really about religious slaughter versus “stunning” slaughter at all. Suppose it is simply about protecting Belgian meat producers. The EU doesn’t prohibit kosher slaughter. Apparently they don’t buy the arguments that “stunning” slaughter is better morally. But if the Belgians prohibit all meat from countries that don’t prohibit non-stunning slaughter than its market is closed and local producers are protected. So what if the rights of some minorities are thrown under the bus? Europeans have excluded Jews from ways of making a living for centuries. It’s an old story. Plus it exploits the prejudices of anti-Semites and those that hate Jewish kosher slaughter for more benign reasons. Could be. Not saying it is. But it could be.

 

[Left Coast]

It is entirely clear that we humans have evolved to be omnivorous animals -- we eat animal and vegetable both. This is apparent in our dentition, in our digestive tracts, and in the way in which we extract the amino acids that we require in order to make the proteins that we require for building, sustaining and repairing our bodies.

Yes, it is possible to construct vegetarian diets that can provide what we need -- but in fact it's actually quite difficult, and if you are living a loca-vore kind of life, close to impossible in many places throughout the world.

So, some people -- likely most -- are going to continue to eat animal proteins. This will very likely expand into eating animals most of us don't consider at the moment (tasty insects and slugs and the like). Or the very delicious, lobster-like bugs found around Australia.


As that is the case, I think Revoltingest is quite right -- since we're going to eat animals, let's at least despatch them with some concern for their suffering.

I agree some people need animal meat to live. However, this describes almost no one in developed countries. Some people in remote tribal villages with no other resources, yes. And in their cases, animals should be killed as painlessly as possible, I agree. For the rest of us, however, meat is simply not necessary to live. It's a luxury. Even from an omnivorous perspective, we in the West eat much more meat than we once did, largely because factory farming makes it so easy.

 

[Revoltingest]

I agree some people need animal meat to live. However, this describes almost no one in developed countries. Some people in remote tribal villages with no other resources, yes. And in their cases, animals should be killed as painlessly as possible, I agree. For the rest of us, however, meat is simply not necessary to live. It's a luxury. Even from an omnivorous perspective, we in the West eat much more meat than we once did, largely because factory farming makes it so easy.

I like my luxuries.

 

[Left Coast]

I like my luxuries.

That's nice. I like animals not to be killed when it's not necessary.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I agree some people need animal meat to live. However, this describes almost no one in developed countries. Some people in remote tribal villages with no other resources, yes. And in their cases, animals should be killed as painlessly as possible, I agree. For the rest of us, however, meat is simply not necessary to live. It's a luxury. Even from an omnivorous perspective, we in the West eat much more meat than we once did, largely because factory farming makes it so easy.

And do you object to luxury? Do you object to anything more that what is absolutely necessary for survival? That, I think, would have to include art, religion, philosophy and any number of other things. Not just meat.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's nice. I like animals not to be killed when it's not necessary.

I like that too...but perhaps to a lesser extent.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Could be. Not saying it is. But it could be.

^ with Trump-like precision.