EU Court upholds Belgian ban on kosher and halal slaughter

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Okay, but one needs to remember that this is a public forum. And you got George's claim wrong. He did not say that there is no evidence for his claim. He said that he does not have any evidence for his claim. Big difference. Calm down.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, but you didn't. Grasping at strawmen isn't fruitful.

You could have apologized. I didn't grasp and I paid attention.

Try again.

 

[rosends]

You could have apologized. I didn't grasp and I paid attention.

Try again.

I could have done a lot of things. You didn't grasp even though you paid attention. The need to try again isn't on me.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Okay, but one needs to remember that this is a public forum. And you got George's claim wrong. He did not say that there is no evidence for his claim. He said that he does not have any evidence for his claim. Big difference. Calm down.

And you got what I said wrong. I didn't say there was no evidence. You just seem to want to be right about something, no matter what, even if it means misrepresenting or misreading (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) the posts of others.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And you got what I said wrong. I didn't say there was no evidence. You just seem to want to be right about something, no matter what, even if it means misrepresenting or misreading (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) the posts of others.

What!?? You seem to be very confused. I never made that claim about you. Where did you get that from?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did. Sadly it was beyond your ability to reason.

Oh well.

So nice to see that @rosends can laugh at himself. Perhaps we can get somewhere in this discussion.

Okay as to glue traps. They appear to be legal in Belgium, but your objection has little merit. Society advances by addressing the wrongs it can fix now. Using a wrong that has not been fixed is not a valid excuse not to fix others.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

What!?? You seem to be very confused. I never made that claim about you. Where did you get that from?

You said:
"And you got George's claim wrong. He did not say that there is no evidence for his claim. He said that he does not have any evidence for his claim."

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yes it was. But then his previous post was not any better.

(No fair! Jimmy did it first!)

 

[Subduction Zone]

You said:
"And you got George's claim wrong. He did not say that there is no evidence for his claim. He said that he does not have any evidence for his claim."

Correct, that is what I said. There is not even an implication that you said there is no evidence in that post. So I am still wondering why you responded as you did.

 

[Revoltingest]

=====----- Notice ----=====
Let's refocus on the issues,
& away from each other.

We don't want mods coming
here to clean house & issue
spankings.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OMG! You whine about my purported inconsistencies while whining about @rosends because he noted raised inconsistencies. What a joke.

Not whining. But lets drop the personal attacks.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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.

I think you raise an important point, but let me suggest that there is a difference between "specious" and "disingenuous," and that distinction is important.

 

[kiwimac]

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.

Rot and nonsense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think you raise an important point, but let me suggest that there is a difference between "specious" and "disingenuous," and that distinction is important.

How is it disingenuous? That there is still wrong in the world is never a valid reason for not fixing what we can fix today.

 

[stvdv]

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

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

You are free to think whatever you want. But I call it imposing and arrogance "to think you know better what I imply (with my own words)"

 

[rosends]

I think you raise an important point, but let me suggest that there is a difference between "specious" and "disingenuous," and that distinction is important.

I understand your suggestion but I'm not sure if I agree with it (the more cynical side of me is still pushing for specious). The move to ban what can be defended as "cruel" while continuing to ignore other things that are equally or more cruel seems intentional to that side of me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand your suggestion but I'm not sure if I agree with it (the more cynical side of me is still pushing for specious). The move to ban what can be defended as "cruel" while continuing to ignore other things that are equally or more cruel seems intentional to that side of me.

That appears to be an assumption. They may be working to cure other ills as well. Once again it is not possible to cure all ills at once. Not fixing what one can because there are other wrongs is not a valid excuse.

 

[rosends]

That appears to be an assumption. They may be working to cure other ills as well. Once again it is not possible to cure all ills at once. Not fixing what one can because there are other wrongs is not a valid excuse.

It is absolutely an assumption, but one based in what is making the news. I have heard nothing about anyone trying to address other wrongs. In the absence of any other news, I wonder if the decision to focus on one and not others is driven by any underlying agenda.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"An advocate general, Gerard Hogan, said in September that the CJEU should strike down the Belgian ban. He cited that the 2009 E.U. law that animals should be stunned before being slaughtered has an exception for religious animal slaughter—an exception that Hogan said exemplified the E.U.’s belief in freedom of religion." - from the article

I think that exemplifies the core of the discussion. The question if stunning is more humane or not is a side show. The real debate is whether religions are exceptional and deserve privileges is what it's about.

I don't understand why this is a matter of religious accommodation at all.

I agree that forcing Jews or Muslims to eat food that's non-kosher or haraam would be a violation of their conscience, but does either religion require the eating of meat or commercial slaughter of animals?

If there were no kosher or halal meat available, why wouldn't they be able to manage by simply not eating meat? Is there some Jewish or Muslim rule against being a vegetarian that I'm not aware of?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I understand your suggestion but I'm not sure if I agree with it (the more cynical side of me is still pushing for specious). The move to ban what can be defended as "cruel" while continuing to ignore other things that are equally or more cruel seems intentional to that side of me.

Perhaps the difference is simply semantic, so let me try this ...

If the new law was solely motivated by concern over animal suffering, one would reasonably expect to see a comparable concern manifesting itself in areas such as hunting regulations. To the best of my knowledge, it is not, and the fact that this wellspring of righteous indignation appears to be directed against Jews and Muslims is noteworthy and worrisome.

At the same time, I would hope that we prove committed to an honest re-evaluation of ritual slaughter which is both respectful of our traditions and informed by the best science.