Page 279 of 312 FirstFirst ... 179229269275276277278279280281282283289 ... LastLast
Results 2,781 to 2,790 of 3115

Thread: Breaking News

  1. #2781
    Senior Member jberks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Leeds
    Posts
    1,944
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by payno View Post
    Total rubbish any killing with out being stunned is stressful and painful how about someone with a very sharp knife slashes your arm then you can tell me it isn't stressful or didn't hurt

    Got any pets a home when the time come to put them down would you allow them to be killed with a sharp knife ?
    I'm afraid you're jumping down the emotional but ignorant route.

    Have you ever cut yourself with something very sharp? You don't notice initially, in fact often you aren't aware of the pain until you see the blood. Pain is, as any physician will tell you, very much in the mind. If you're not conscously aware of something you often won't feel the pain until quite a few seconds later. A blunt cut is usually noticed much more quickly due to the tearing of the skin, not the cut itself. If it's done quickly enough, by the time the brain has become aware, unconsciousness has arrived.
    Hence no, it's not rubbish.

    The question as to whether they feel anything prior to loss of consciousness is debateable as there's valid independent evidence on both sides. But there is equally evidence that there is some suffering on the stunning method and equally how effective stunning is in a great many cases. And on your argument, when you last banged your head, was that painless? Nothing is without some level of suffering.

    What you're proposing is banning certain religious practices because, on a sliding scale of suffering, you've placed your flag in a particular position. What then do those religious believers do? They aren't going to pop down to Morrisons and buy mince because you decided you didn't like their rules.

    Banning religious practices that have been going for millenia because it doesn't fit into your personal culture, is a very dangerous path and not one a decent society should follow. As any butcher will tell you, stress harms the meat, so if the animal had suffered more, the meat is ruined, so it's not in anyone's interests for the animal to suffer. There are plenty of studies that show no recordable reactions from the animal during slaughter. Also you should be aware that "undue suffering" of the animal is certainly strictly contrary to Kashrut laws (if the animal suffers the meat isn't kosher) and I have no doubt there's something in the Halal rules along similar lines.

    But, all slaughter causes some suffering so, on your argument, where do we stop? If we ignore your personal flag as you do tolerate some suffering, and we take the position of most vegitarians, who's view is surely as valid as yours, we should ban ALL slaughter. It would also be supported by the green lobby too as it's a massive contributor to Co2 emissions.

    So, if you're sufficiently self aware to admit it, you're guided not by genuine animal welfare concerns, but rather but a dislike of things that you're not personally steeped in. It's cultural differences that are at issue here. We all have an instinctive dislike of things "different" to what we are personally brought up with. I find the eating of shellfish abhorrent, and what about what we do to lobsters? I have no problem banning those things. The problem is, we then attach "rational reasons" to our instincts and then claim the moral high ground. It's natural and it's very human but we must all at least be aware of it and guard against it. I have a similar gut objection to the Burka - but it's not part of my culture and there are women who at least claim, they want to wear one, so who the hell am I to dictate?

    Its rather like the guy decrying recreational drugs use whilst sitting in the pub with a pint and having a cig.
    It's all a matter of degree and in the detail, it gets very murky. One person's moral high ground is anothers valley!
    2012 XF 3.0D S Premium Luxury

  2. Likes Jag-Black liked this post
  3. #2782
    Senior Member Jim_S-V6_2004's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    17,332
    Post Thanks / Like
    Here you go, the only thing missing is the prayer:

    https://www.britannica.com/technolog...ter-procedures

    I thought that the bolt gun killed the animal but it's only stunned.

    Note also that CO2 is used to anaesthetise the animals, although this may be only in the USA? Odd.

    Then in all cases as much blood is let out as possible, and this satisfies the major religions.

    Except for illegal butchery there are no unlicenced abattoirs, even in Cyprus all except 5 were closed down, and all abattoirs are monitored for compliance with the laws.

    No case to argue.

    .

  4. #2783
    Senior Member Jim_S-V6_2004's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    17,332
    Post Thanks / Like
    However...

    https://www.newscientist.com/article...ous-slaughter/

    Animals feel the pain of religious slaughter. Brain signals have shown that calves do appear to feel pain when slaughtered according to Jewish and Muslim religious law, strengthening the case for adapting the practices to make them more humane.Oct 13, 2009
    ...

  5. #2784
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Essex
    Posts
    1,373
    Post Thanks / Like
    Awful news. Those poor people and their families.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46734728
    2003 Jaguar XJ8 (X350) 4.2 Silver
    2006 Jaguar XK (X150) 4.2 Indigo Metallic

  6. #2785
    Senior Member jberks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Leeds
    Posts
    1,944
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim_S-V6_2004 View Post
    Yes, and
    the European Food Safety authority found in 2004 that the failure rate for the much-trumpeted penetrating captive bolt stunning in conventional mechanical slaughter may be as high as 6.6%, and up to 31% for non-penetrating captive bolt and electric stunning. This equates to millions of animals each year that experience incredible suffering. But the BVA has not mounted a campaign on this.

    There is no moral high ground here.
    2012 XF 3.0D S Premium Luxury

  7. Likes Thomas Hayward liked this post
  8. #2786
    Senior Member payno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    birmingham
    Posts
    4,984
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by jberks View Post
    I'm afraid you're jumping down the emotional but ignorant route.

    Have you ever cut yourself with something very sharp? You don't notice initially, in fact often you aren't aware of the pain until you see the blood. Pain is, as any physician will tell you, very much in the mind. If you're not conscously aware of something you often won't feel the pain until quite a few seconds later. A blunt cut is usually noticed much more quickly due to the tearing of the skin, not the cut itself. If it's done quickly enough, by the time the brain has become aware, unconsciousness has arrived.
    Hence no, it's not rubbish.

    The question as to whether they feel anything prior to loss of consciousness is debateable as there's valid independent evidence on both sides. But there is equally evidence that there is some suffering on the stunning method and equally how effective stunning is in a great many cases. And on your argument, when you last banged your head, was that painless? Nothing is without some level of suffering.

    What you're proposing is banning certain religious practices because, on a sliding scale of suffering, you've placed your flag in a particular position. What then do those religious believers do? They aren't going to pop down to Morrisons and buy mince because you decided you didn't like their rules.

    Banning religious practices that have been going for millenia because it doesn't fit into your personal culture, is a very dangerous path and not one a decent society should follow. As any butcher will tell you, stress harms the meat, so if the animal had suffered more, the meat is ruined, so it's not in anyone's interests for the animal to suffer. There are plenty of studies that show no recordable reactions from the animal during slaughter. Also you should be aware that "undue suffering" of the animal is certainly strictly contrary to Kashrut laws (if the animal suffers the meat isn't kosher) and I have no doubt there's something in the Halal rules along similar lines.

    But, all slaughter causes some suffering so, on your argument, where do we stop? If we ignore your personal flag as you do tolerate some suffering, and we take the position of most vegitarians, who's view is surely as valid as yours, we should ban ALL slaughter. It would also be supported by the green lobby too as it's a massive contributor to Co2 emissions.

    So, if you're sufficiently self aware to admit it, you're guided not by genuine animal welfare concerns, but rather but a dislike of things that you're not personally steeped in. It's cultural differences that are at issue here. We all have an instinctive dislike of things "different" to what we are personally brought up with. I find the eating of shellfish abhorrent, and what about what we do to lobsters? I have no problem banning those things. The problem is, we then attach "rational reasons" to our instincts and then claim the moral high ground. It's natural and it's very human but we must all at least be aware of it and guard against it. I have a similar gut objection to the Burka - but it's not part of my culture and there are women who at least claim, they want to wear one, so who the hell am I to dictate?

    Its rather like the guy decrying recreational drugs use whilst sitting in the pub with a pint and having a cig.
    It's all a matter of degree and in the detail, it gets very murky. One person's moral high ground is anothers valley!
    Of cause you would decry any thing that makes your religion look cruel (that a pride thing) even if its true me I will take the reasoning of the animal welfare studies over religion any day as they are not encumbered by made up religious BS that they feel the need to defend even when its proved to be untrue


    Yes I have cut myself numerous time in my life with very sharp implements from wood chisels to scalpels and they all hurt what I haven't done is be hung by my back legs have my throat cut and watch my blood spill over the ground I would prefer to be stunned for that strangely enough


    Making excuses for barbaric religious practise's in this day and age is wrong all religions should be force into the 21st centaury by law whether its about slaughter or abuse of peoples genitals you can pray to non existent deities all you like just don't use it as an excuse to abuse living things
    S TYPE R 2003
    BMW M3 EVOLUTION 1998
    You can not beat me in a argument
    I am too stupid to know when I am beaten

  9. Likes Zero123 liked this post
  10. #2787
    Senior Member payno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    birmingham
    Posts
    4,984
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by jberks View Post
    Yes, and
    the European Food Safety authority found in 2004 that the failure rate for the much-trumpeted penetrating captive bolt stunning in conventional mechanical slaughter may be as high as 6.6%, and up to 31% for non-penetrating captive bolt and electric stunning. This equates to millions of animals each year that experience incredible suffering. But the BVA has not mounted a campaign on this.

    There is no moral high ground here.
    Nothing is perfect but at least there trying not to cause suffering and not hiding behind religious nonsense ....
    S TYPE R 2003
    BMW M3 EVOLUTION 1998
    You can not beat me in a argument
    I am too stupid to know when I am beaten

  11. #2788
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Essex
    Posts
    1,373
    Post Thanks / Like
    Not a fan of stunning myself, for exactly these reasons. However, I accept that animals have to die, in order to make it onto my plate, and as such, I accept it.

    People need to accept that generally speaking, traditional slaughter isn't a picnic for the animals, they aren't cuddled to death.

    Quote Originally Posted by jberks View Post
    Yes, and
    the European Food Safety authority found in 2004 that the failure rate for the much-trumpeted penetrating captive bolt stunning in conventional mechanical slaughter may be as high as 6.6%, and up to 31% for non-penetrating captive bolt and electric stunning. This equates to millions of animals each year that experience incredible suffering. But the BVA has not mounted a campaign on this.

    There is no moral high ground here.
    2003 Jaguar XJ8 (X350) 4.2 Silver
    2006 Jaguar XK (X150) 4.2 Indigo Metallic

  12. Likes jberks liked this post
  13. #2789
    Senior Member jberks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Leeds
    Posts
    1,944
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by payno View Post
    Of cause you would decry any thing that makes your religion look cruel (that a pride thing) even if its true me I will take the reasoning of the animal welfare studies over religion any day as they are not encumbered by made up religious BS that they feel the need to defend even when its proved to be untrue


    Yes I have cut myself numerous time in my life with very sharp implements from wood chisels to scalpels and they all hurt what I haven't done is be hung by my back legs have my throat cut and watch my blood spill over the ground I would prefer to be stunned for that strangely enough


    Making excuses for barbaric religious practise's in this day and age is wrong all religions should be force into the 21st centaury by law whether its about slaughter or abuse of peoples genitals you can pray to non existent deities all you like just don't use it as an excuse to abuse living things
    And there you have it. Your objections are based on "It's not part of my culture or belief structure", rationalised on "An abuse of living things". So you see alien practices are barbaric when much of the scientific evidence is either inconclusive or contra-idicative. Dr Temple Granding of Colorado University (apparently an expert in animal welfare) has studied the subject and reported "conventional slaughter with preliminary stunning, and religious slaughter without stunning, are both acceptable when conducted properly.". She actually said she was surprised at her findings. Presumably because they go against perceived wisdom.

    Religion is a complex and therefore difficult issue. Your "Non existent deities" point clearly explains where you stand on the subject and therefore your mind is closed to the arguments of people who feel differently.

    On the non existent deities side, I tend to agree with you from a personal perspective , I'm not in any way "observant" or a believer but attacking any religious practice without proof is simply an act of intolerance.

    Personally I don't have a problem if they want to stun but I'm not going to sit here and claim that any method is palatable if I choose to think about it. So, I don't. I'm a hypocrite in this regard, but at least I recognise the fact.

    230,000 cattle in the UK are stunned incorrectly each year and suffer vastly more than any religious procedure as a consequence. Also remember, a stressed animal produces ruined meat so unless you believe Halal and Kosher meat is very poor quality, this whole argument is very much one of fractional degree.

    So, if you genuinely object on genuine animal welfare grounds, then you have no choice but to become a vegitarian. After all, otherwise you're just as hypocritial as the rest of us.

    As for the "genital" comment, I suspect I have a hell of a lot more experience of that than you do so I have a lot more right to comment, and I have absolutely no problem with it. I've never met anyone who had given it any thought, let alone wished it hadn't been done, which in my book puts objectors into the "Winter Festival" brigade. Meddling in areas nobody asked or wanted them to.
    FGM is an utterly different subject as it is proven to be harmful.

    We can all attack cultures. I don't drink particularly and my Dad likes a pint of Orange juice so I've always found it odd that one great right of passage in this country is a father taking his son to the pub on his 18th Birthday and buying him a pint. It just promotes alcoholism, dangerous behaviour and physical harm in the form of liver damage, let alone domestic and sporting violence and all the other issues surrounding alcohol. Why does a parent actively introduce their child to such harm?.

    Anyone can make a perfectly valid objection to someone else's culture - prohibition anyone or am I going over the top?
    Maybe live and let live unless it's really serious (e.g. throwing gay people of the roof of tall buildings).
    2012 XF 3.0D S Premium Luxury

  14. #2790
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Essex
    Posts
    1,373
    Post Thanks / Like
    That is more a case of murdering scumbags (Daesh), murdering people they don't like, and trying to hide behind religion (The Quran doesn't teach this). Rather than a cultural issue.

    Also, in the UK, gay people are more at threat from general everyday homophobic attacks, than Daesh.

    Quote Originally Posted by jberks View Post


    Anyone can make a perfectly valid objection to someone else's culture - prohibition anyone or am I going over the top?
    Maybe live and let live unless it's really serious (e.g. throwing gay people of the roof of tall buildings).
    2003 Jaguar XJ8 (X350) 4.2 Silver
    2006 Jaguar XK (X150) 4.2 Indigo Metallic

  15. Likes payno liked this post
Page 279 of 312 FirstFirst ... 179229269275276277278279280281282283289 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •