EU Court upholds Belgian ban on kosher and halal slaughter

[Glaurung]

Religious Freedom <> killing others

Animals aren't people.

Now if you want to believe that it is wrong to raise and kill livestock for food you're free to that conviction. Good luck in convincing the world at large to adopt vegetarianism.

It is an exceptionally good reason; nobody has the right to inflict unnecessary suffering, regardless of their beliefs.

Unnecessary according to whom? Unless you can show that the suffering inflicted on the animal is egregious - that is, significantly more severe than what is inflicted by secular means - then you're not going to convince me that there is a compelling state interest in banning long established (and religiously mandated) customs of ritual slaughter.

 

[Secret Chief]

Animals aren't people.

This is correct. It is also true that people are animals.

 

[stvdv]

Animals aren't people.

I did not say that, and definitely not implied that

Now if you want to believe that it is wrong to raise and kill livestock for food you're free to that conviction.

I never said it is wrong

Good luck in convincing the world at large to adopt vegetarianism.

I don't "evangelize"

 

[Glaurung]

I did not say that, and definitely not implied that

You certainly did imply it. You said that religious freedom <> killing others. Who are these 'others'? The animals? Because as far as I can see no one is arguing for human sacrifice to be tolerated.

I never said it is wrong

Then your reply to me incoherent. If it is not wrong to kill an animal for meat then what is it exactly are you arguing?

 

[stvdv]

You certainly did imply it.

I know best what I implied, don't you think?

You said that religious freedom <> killing others. Who are these 'others'?

Religious Freedom is about the Freedom to believe whatever you want. Actions on the other hand fall under "the Law of the Country"

Then your reply to me incoherent. If it is not wrong to kill an animal for meat then what is it exactly are you arguing?

I don't reply incoherently. You just misunderstood me

Hinduism as I am taught is not about "right and wrong" and "sin"
Hinduism is about "Dharmic and Adharmic"
Big difference

 

[Subduction Zone]

To repeat myself then:
You posted:
"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."
This is:
"An argument to moderation - the fallacy that the truth is a compromise between two opposite positions."
- Argument to moderation - Wikipedia

And to repeat my further point:
I accept that the above is your honestly held opinion. I only trawled through a long list of fallacies to try to highlight your black-and-white fallacy comment is a game anyone can play. These two fallacies are in opposition to each other, they cannot both be right, but seemingly they are. It's a fruitless urinating contest imo. You think the issue of such monkeys is of a meaningful difference to the issue of slaughterhouses. My opinion is otherwise, but rather than accept this you seem to believe it is an example of faulty reasoning, and having had this pointed out to me, the scales may fall from my eyes and I will agree with your position. You'll have a long wait.

Oh such a failure! If you are going to use a logical fallacy at first make sure that it apples.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Animals aren't people.

Now if you want to believe that it is wrong to raise and kill livestock for food you're free to that conviction. Good luck in convincing the world at large to adopt vegetarianism.


Unnecessary according to whom? Unless you can show that the suffering inflicted on the animal is egregious - that is, significantly more severe than what is inflicted by secular means - then you're not going to convince me that there is a compelling state interest in banning long established (and religiously mandated) customs of ritual slaughter.

Correct, animals are not people. They are still living organisms that can feel pain. It is immoral to unnecessarily cause pain, whether in a fellow human being or an animal. Those actions can be regulated since they affect others even if those others are not human. Religious freedom is a right of beliefs. It is not a right of actions.

 

[rosends]

I know I'm introducing an argument rife with holes, but I find this particular ruling about slaughter to be specious at best. I don't know the rules in Belgium, but I know that there is horse racing there and I believe that horses, both in how they are raised and how they are raced, experience more pain and suffering through horse racing than a cow does through ritual slaughter. Are there pet shops that keep birds in cages? Do the stores sell rat poison or mouse traps? I find an inconsistency -- focusing on the seconds of possible suffering for some animals while ignoring extended pain for others. If I were a more cynical person, I might wonder why there is this fascination with potential suffering caused by methods of death that are expressions of religion, and not with potential suffering caused by methods of life that are expressions of culture.

 

[Revoltingest]

Gee, according to the Declaration of Independence rights are derived from the Creator. I guess you don’t believe that. That figures.

The Creator has yet to show up for a single meeting of Congress.
Until then, our rights continue to be based upon interaction of
voters, courts, Congresscritters, & Presidents.
Animal rights & religious rights are gonna get increasingly fought
over....so I predict.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know I'm introducing an argument rife with holes, but I find this particular ruling about slaughter to be specious at best. I don't know the rules in Belgium, but I know that there is horse racing there and I believe that horses, both in how they are raised and how they are raced, experience more pain and suffering through horse racing than a cow does through ritual slaughter. Are there pet shops that keep birds in cages? Do the stores sell rat poison or mouse traps? I find an inconsistency -- focusing on the seconds of possible suffering for some animals while ignoring extended pain for others. If I were a more cynical person, I might wonder why there is this fascination with potential suffering caused by methods of death that are expressions of religion, and not with potential suffering caused by methods of life that are expressions of culture.

Yes, your argument fails quite badly. It is also A bit of a Gish Gallop. It is best to pick out your best argument and go with that rather than trying to throw A whole bunch at the wall and see if any stick. My rule is refute one and you have refuted them all. So keeping that in mind your mouse and rat trap poisoning and trapping argument is a clear fail. The argument has always been for using the least pain necessary. Rats and mice can pass on disease and unchecked are a threat to our food supply. Those methods are necessary to prevent such threats to humanity. Please note that purposefully inflicting excessive pain is not allowed. A trap that tortures would be banned. Torture is purposefully inflicting pain on others. A trap that is not perfect is allowed since perfection is not a reasonable goal.

So there. Argument refuted. Necessary pain can be justified.

 

[Glaurung]

I know best what I implied, don't you think?

No I don't think because you're not making sense.

Religious Freedom is about the Freedom to believe whatever you want. Actions on the other hand falls under "the Law of the Country"

No. Religious freedom includes the freedom to practice (manifest) religious belief as well. Otherwise the freedom is meaningless. Obviously, the freedom to manifest religious belief in action is not absolute. I accept that the state can restrict such action if there is a compelling reason of the common good. I'm not convinced that banning Jewish ritual slaughter is in the compelling interest of the common good.

Correct, animals are not people. They are still living organisms that can feel pain. It is immoral to unnecessarily cause pain, whether in a fellow human being or an animal.

The assumption here is that allowing Jewish ritual slaughter is subjecting animals to 'unnecessary' pain. An assumption I don't share. Just because you don't see value in Jewish custom does not make it unnecessary. It is necessary for them [observant Jews]. And I resent the idea that the state ought to tell them otherwise.

Religious freedom is a right of beliefs. It is not a right of actions.

Religion includes action. The mere 'freedom' to hold beliefs in my head is meaningless. See my response to stvdv.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The assumption here is that allowing Jewish ritual slaughter is subjecting animals to 'unnecessary' pain. An assumption I don't share. Just because you don't see value in Jewish custom does not make it unnecessary. It is necessary for them [observant Jews]. And I resent the idea that the state ought to tell them otherwise.


Religion includes action. The mere 'freedom' to hold beliefs in my head is meaningless. See my response to stvdv.

No, it is not an assumption. It is an observation. Please learn the difference. And yes, religious beliefs can include actions, but those actions can be limited. Historically some religions advocated the killing of nonbelievers. That action is limited. Now that sort of ban is being extended to some animals.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I have no concrete evidence to offer via links or articles, but a friend of mine briefly worked in a meat packing plant. He quit after a week, saying the methods were not humane, what they tell the public about what goes on and what actually goes on isn't really what happens, and he couldn't listen to those poor animals scream anymore... (It was a Tyson plant.) I know very little about the religious practices regarding animal slaughter, but I am certain commercial is inhumane.

I was already with @Estro Felino and vegetarian, but it made me cringe to hear his stories.

This is known:

"In a 2018 study in the Italian Journal of Food Safety, slaughterhouse workers are instructed to wear ear protectors to protect their hearing from the constant screams of animals being killed. A 2004 study in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine found that "excess risks were observed for mortality from all causes, all cancers, and lung cancer" in workers employed in the New Zealand meat processing industry.

The worst thing, worse than the physical danger, is the emotional toll. If you work in the stick pit [where hogs are killed] for any period of time—that let's [sic] you kill things but doesn't let you care. You may look a hog in the eye that's walking around in the blood pit with you and think, 'God, that really isn't a bad looking animal.' You may want to pet it. Pigs down on the kill floor have come up to nuzzle me like a puppy. Two minutes later I had to kill them - beat them to death with a pipe. I can't care.

— Gail A. Eisnitz,
Working at slaughterhouses often leads to a high amount of psychological trauma. A 2016 study in Organization indicates, "Regression analyses of data from 10,605 Danish workers across 44 occupations suggest that slaughterhouse workers consistently experience lower physical and psychological well-being along with increased incidences of negative coping behavior." In her thesis submitted to and approved by University of Colorado, Anna Dorovskikh states that slaughterhouse workers are "at risk of Perpetration-Inducted Traumatic Stress, which is a form of posttraumatic stress disorder and results from situations where the concerning subject suffering from PTSD was a causal participant in creating the traumatic situation." A 2009 study by criminologist Amy Fitzgerald indicates, "slaughterhouse employment increases total arrest rates, arrests for violent crimes, arrests for rape, and arrests for other sex offenses in comparison with other industries." As authors from the PTSD Journal explain, "These employees are hired to kill animals, such as pigs and cows that are largely gentle creatures. Carrying out this action requires workers to disconnect from what they are doing and from the creature standing before them. This emotional dissonance can lead to consequences such as domestic violence, social withdrawal, anxiety, drug and alcohol abuse, and PTSD.""
(Wikipedia)

Humans evolved to be hunter-gatherers, anyway.

The Creator has yet to show up for a single meeting of Congress.
Until then, our rights continue to be based upon interaction of
voters, courts, Congresscritters, & Presidents.
Animal rights & religious rights are gonna get increasingly fought
over....so I predict.

"The Creator" can be viewed as a rhetorical device in philosophy because "inherent rights" have to have a foundation somewhere. That whole line of thought is based on Christian philosophy, which the Enlightenment secularized.

 

[rosends]

Yes, your argument fails quite badly. It is also A bit of a Gish Gallop. It is best to pick out your best argument and go with that rather than trying to throw A whole bunch at the wall and see if any stick. My rule is refute one and you have refuted them all. So keeping that in mind your mouse and rat trap poisoning and trapping argument is a clear fail. The argument has always been for using the least pain necessary. Rats and mice can pass on disease and unchecked are a threat to our food supply. Those methods are necessary to prevent such threats to humanity. Please note that purposefully inflicting excessive pain is not allowed. A trap that tortures would be banned. Torture is purposefully inflicting pain on others. A trap that is not perfect is allowed since perfection is not a reasonable goal.

So there. Argument refuted. Necessary pain can be justified.

Would you happen to know if glue traps are illegal in Belgium? If you would prefer, i can focus on the concept of hunting instead of giving animals poison and letting them suffer (or using glue traps which also kill cats and birds). If you wish to lose sight of the forest for the trees, feel free.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is known:

"In a 2018 study in the Italian Journal of Food Safety, slaughterhouse workers are instructed to wear ear protectors to protect their hearing from the constant screams of animals being killed. A 2004 study in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine found that "excess risks were observed for mortality from all causes, all cancers, and lung cancer" in workers employed in the New Zealand meat processing industry.

The worst thing, worse than the physical danger, is the emotional toll. If you work in the stick pit [where hogs are killed] for any period of time—that let's [sic] you kill things but doesn't let you care. You may look a hog in the eye that's walking around in the blood pit with you and think, 'God, that really isn't a bad looking animal.' You may want to pet it. Pigs down on the kill floor have come up to nuzzle me like a puppy. Two minutes later I had to kill them - beat them to death with a pipe. I can't care.

— Gail A. Eisnitz,
Working at slaughterhouses often leads to a high amount of psychological trauma. A 2016 study in Organization indicates, "Regression analyses of data from 10,605 Danish workers across 44 occupations suggest that slaughterhouse workers consistently experience lower physical and psychological well-being along with increased incidences of negative coping behavior." In her thesis submitted to and approved by University of Colorado, Anna Dorovskikh states that slaughterhouse workers are "at risk of Perpetration-Inducted Traumatic Stress, which is a form of posttraumatic stress disorder and results from situations where the concerning subject suffering from PTSD was a causal participant in creating the traumatic situation." A 2009 study by criminologist Amy Fitzgerald indicates, "slaughterhouse employment increases total arrest rates, arrests for violent crimes, arrests for rape, and arrests for other sex offenses in comparison with other industries." As authors from the PTSD Journal explain, "These employees are hired to kill animals, such as pigs and cows that are largely gentle creatures. Carrying out this action requires workers to disconnect from what they are doing and from the creature standing before them. This emotional dissonance can lead to consequences such as domestic violence, social withdrawal, anxiety, drug and alcohol abuse, and PTSD.""
(Wikipedia)

Humans evolved to be hunter-gatherers, anyway.

"The Creator" can be viewed as a rhetorical device in philosophy because "inherent rights" have to have a foundation somewhere. That whole line of thought is based on Christian philosophy, which the Enlightenment secularized.

Okay . . . But no one is disputing that slaughterhouses are unpleasant places to work, whether kosher, halal, or neither. What is being discussed is whether some methods are less humane than others.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Would you happen to know if glue traps are illegal in Belgium?

Nope, no clue. Does it matter? They have been banned in some areas.

EDIT: Banned in Ireland and New Zealand. And many local governments:
Don't Let Rodents Die Slow and Horrific Deaths in Glue Traps - ForceChange

 

[rosends]

Nope, no clue. Does it matter? They have been banned in some areas.

EDIT: Banned in Ireland and New Zealand. And many local governments:
Don't Let Rodents Die Slow and Horrific Deaths in Glue Traps - ForceChange

Of course it matters (and I have an article from around 2008 which seems to indicate that there was a resolution to outlaw them in the EU but I have no follow up). If your argument is that only humane methods are allowed in killing mice, and that method is allowed, then either that method is humane, or your argument has a flaw.

But that's not my point. My overarching statement was that the focus on only one area, while there are others which (in my very humble opinion) cause greater suffering seems selective and, were I suspicious of men's motives, problematic.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Okay . . . But no one is disputing that slaughterhouses are unpleasant places to work, whether kosher, halal, or neither. What is being discussed is whether some methods are less humane than others.

Duh. I was replying to @JustGeorge saying they don't have links or proof of what slaughterhouses are really like, so I showed that research has been done that backs her up. I shouldn't have to explain that. Calm down.

 

[Glaurung]

No, it is not an assumption. It is an observation. Please learn the difference.

That shechita is any crueler than secular methods is a claimed observation.

And yes, religious beliefs can include actions, but those actions can be limited. Historically some religions advocated the killing of nonbelievers. That action is limited. Now that sort of ban is being extended to some animals.

But killing animals for meat is not being banned.

 

[Secret Chief]

Oh such a failure! If you are going to use a logical fallacy at first make sure that it apples.

I stand by what I said. I think it apples. But as I tried to get over, fallacy games are not of interest to me.