At least it's not kosher killing.
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is Reducing but Not Eliminating Meat Consumption More Ethical than Not Reducing It?
- Thread starter Debater Slayer
- Start date
Secret Chief
Very strong language
Irrelevant.
Just saying that it could be worse.
Using CO2 to kill doesn't strike me as that inhumane.
But if there's a kinder method, I'm for it.
I think beheading in one strike will always be the best method of slaughter.
I've never worked in an abattoir, so I don't know.
The pneumatically powered bolt to the head
seems the best I know of.
Now for some entertainment....
Dad used to do this to the pigs.
Said one sow took 3 hits and didn't die. Really traumatised him. One of many, I think.
Old fashioned methods seem better.
You don't need to work in a slaughterhouse to know that. Decapitation in one strike is instant permanent lights out. I like how they did it with a big sword in that scene from Apocalypse Now. The bolt to the head doesn't always kill them.
Low air pressure perhaps?
An issue of not the right tool for the job?
We can agree that the method should be
as humane as practical.
If a bolt to the head fails, I bet I could
design a better one. That's actually my
field of expertise.
Don't get me started on horsesThe French and other Euros manage it fine
Anyway, the sad truth is that almost all horses live in the equivalent of supermax prisons. Living 23 hours a day in small stalls and getting an hour in some sort of paddock which is also usually not ideal. Those horses indeed aren't damaging a lot of soil. But horses who live in decent environments, suited to their natures, are really hard on soil.
So I guess it isn't really about reducing animal suffering for you, when it comes down to it?
If you're truly interested, I would recommend "Diet for a New America", by Robbins.
That's a political book, not a scientific one:
Diet for a New America - Wikipedia
Might as well recommend a PETA pamplet.
Did you skip post# 88?
Reducing & perhaps eliminating suffering
is the goal. If current pneumatic bolt technology
can't do that, then I could design one that would.
I've designed pneumatic control systems &
surgical tools for various companies.
If you really believe the claim, it should
be based upon sources you could link.
Or you could elaborate what you believe.
It's not support if you just tell someone
to go read a book.
I asked because there is vast disagreement
on just what is a subsidy & what isn't.
I asked that, because you seem to be stuck on this bolt gun method when there's already better methods of slaughter, using simple blades. This makes it seem like you are stuck on that method for reasons of possible financial gain. If it's not about that, then you should be open to other methods that could be superior.
I addressed it because it's the best I know of.
Just an opinion.
Are you stuck on objecting to it?
How is it known that this is better?
There's no money in it for me.
I'm retired, & planning to stay that way.
No one will be hiring me to design the better bolt.
The point is that if something so simple fails,
then even I could make it work properly.
It seems you're stuck on using "stuck on".
How is it known that decapitation or severing the spinal column is better??? Well, there's less of a margin of error, for one, such as it not requiring mechanical equipment. The most important things would be proper training and well-sharpened blades.
I can see bolts being just as reliable & humane.
Also, I don't know if there are other problems
associated with decapitation.
Any experimentation with how it would
work in actual abattoirs?
