Dutch ban religious animal slaughter without stunning

[Thunder]

Dutch approve ban on religious animal slaughter - Yahoo! News

I support the right of Muslims & Jews to slaughter cattle and foul the way they see fit, as to their religious traditions.

At the same time, there is NO logical or rational reason why they cannot amend their rules, to allow the animal to be stunned unconscious before it is killed.

There is NO reason why an animal must suffer as it is killed for our food needs, and religions should be able to accept this.

The less suffering an animal goes through, the more moral we are.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I fail to see how cutting the animal's throat is any less humane than raising them for slaughter in the first place. It's over quickly. It's a clean death.

 

[Guy Incognito]

This seems to be based entirely on xenophobia and anti-religious bigotry.

It is utterly irrational, as Kori points out there is nothing fundamentally morally different about ritual slaughter and mechanized slaughter.

You want to stop suffering and be moral? Worry about humans first, they are far more important. One human life is worth more than all animals combined.

Once human suffering is wiped out, then we can work on eliminating animal suffering. Until that day, it is immoral to expend resources helping animals that could go towards human beings.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

You want to stop suffering and be moral? Worry about humans first, they are far more important. One human life is worth more than all animals combined.

I wouldn't agree with that. Humans can give me money and sexual favors-- some of them are even worth talking to-- but without animals I wouldn't have anything to eat.

On a one-for-one basis, I would say that humans are more important than livestock. Unless it's my livestock.

 

[Djoop]

Now they have to import their meat. Mind you, NL is a country the size of Jersey. If you peddle too hard on your bicycle, you risk crossing the border.

Even those who support this law have to admit that it's incredible hypocrit, considering the suffering of animals that goes on in our BIO industry.

 

[Guy Incognito]

I wouldn't agree with that. Humans can give me money and sexual favors-- some of them are even worth talking to-- but without animals I wouldn't have anything to eat.

Not so. It is possible to live a healthy life without animal food sources. I'm not saying it'd be all that delicious, but synthetic proteins can take the place of animals.

Indeed, morally speaking, meat is immoral for the human cost of it. All that grain that goes into feeding beef can be used to feed far more humans than the steaks it produces.

On a one-for-one basis, I would say that humans are more important than livestock. Unless it's my livestock.

Rights are one thing and morals are another. I would agree that you are within your rights to shoot a cattlethief. But it is still a sin.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Now they have to import their meat. Mind you, NL is a country the size of Jersey. If you peddle too hard on your bicycle, you risk crossing the border.

Even those who support this law have to admit that it's incredible hypocrit, considering the suffering of animals that goes on in our BIO industry.

There are two reasons to support this law:
1) A radical position on animal rights. I disagree with this but I can at least respect it.
2) Xenophobia or bigotry against Islam or Judaism. This I cannot respect.

 

[Thunder]

Kosher slaughter cuts the throat of a conscious animal, who kicks and moans until it bleeds into unconsciousness and then death.

Stunning the animal first, means it does not suffer as it dies.

Clearly, stunning the animal first is the more humane thing to do.

I support this law, and wish it was passed in the USA.

 

[Djoop]

There are two reasons to support this law:
1) A radical position on animal rights. I disagree with this but I can at least respect it.
2) Xenophobia or bigotry against Islam or Judaism. This I cannot respect.

You cannot respect it..

 

[winston53660]

Any one around here almost ever bleed to death? I did and quite honestly it did not hurt.

 

[Thunder]

stunning the animal simply rhendors it unconscious. yet, it is still alive and can awaken and live a normal life.

therefore, stunning the animal before slaughter in NO way violates the Jewish kosher slaughter rules.

 

[Guy Incognito]

therefore, stunning the animal before slaughter in NO way violates the Jewish kosher slaughter rules.

Are you a rabbi?

 

[Guy Incognito]

You cannot respect it..

No I cannot.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Kosher slaughter cuts the throat of a conscious animal, who kicks and moans until it bleeds into unconsciousness and then death.

Stunning the animal first, means it does not suffer as it dies.

Clearly, stunning the animal first is the more humane thing to do.

I support this law, and wish it was passed in the USA.

So you're an animal rights radical. Whatever. Your views are foolish for very different reasons than this Netherlands law is morally odious.

 

[Djoop]

So you're an animal rights radical. Whatever. Your views are foolish for very different reasons than this Netherlands law is morally odious.

One could argue that the "inability to bear the suffering of others" (including animals) is in fact the distinguishing characteristic of the human speciese.

 

[Thunder]

So you're an animal rights radical. Whatever. Your views are foolish for very different reasons than this Netherlands law is morally odious.

Animal rights radicals don't eat meat, cook lobster, own pets, and eat kosher-slaughtered meat at their Orthodox Jewish relative's homes.

So no, your silly personal attack is just....silly.

 

[Thunder]

Are you a rabbi?

no, but I am skilled at the art of reading.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Animal rights radicals don't eat meat, cook lobster, own pets, and eat kosher-slaughtered meat at their Orthodox Jewish relative's homes.

So no, your silly personal attack is just....silly.

Calling you what you are is not a personal attack.

It is radically different from accepted norms to think that animals have any rights at all. The vast majority of us realize that animals have nothing that can properly be called rights.

 

[Guy Incognito]

no, but I am skilled at the art of reading.

I'll trust the rabbis' interpretation of halakha, thanks. Religious laws mean whatever they mean to their adherents.

 

[Thunder]

It is radically different from accepted norms to think that animals have any rights at all. The vast majority of us realize that animals have nothing that can properly be called rights.

and yet most states have laws against cruelty to animals.

abusing and/or killing animals for any reason other than for food, or to put them down due to disease, is a criminal act and will land you in prison for several years.

yes my friend, animals in the USA do indeed have rights.

 

[Guy Incognito]

and yet most states have laws against cruelty to animals.

Those aren't the same as animal rights. Feel free to look it up if you don't believe me.

 

[liblady]

and yet most states have laws against cruelty to animals.

abusing and/or killing animals for any reason other than for food, or to put them down due to disease, is a criminal act and will land you in prison for several years.

yes my friend, animals in the USA do indeed have rights.

touche. i think you won this round.

 

[Guy Incognito]

touche. i think you won this round.

Incorrect. Those aren't animal rights, they are merely laws governing human behavior.

Does a law protecting historical landmarks create rights for old buildings? Of course not.

 

[Thunder]

I'll trust the rabbis' interpretation of halakha, thanks. Religious laws mean whatever they mean to their adherents.

how about THIS Rabbi?

Volume 12 Week 1 - URJ

2. While Judaism forbids tsa'ar ba'alei chayim, inflicting unnecessary pain on animals, those animals raised on "factory farms" live in cramped, confined spaces and are often drugged, mutilated and denied fresh air, sunlight, exercise and any enjoyment of life before they are slaughtered and eaten.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Indeed, morally speaking, meat is immoral for the human cost of it. All that grain that goes into feeding beef can be used to feed far more humans than the steaks it produces.

This is actually not the case. Cows and pigs eat food that humans can not, and convert it into food that we can. And as far as food goes, there is no food shortage on Earth; we have enough to feed the world several times over. People who are currently suffering from famine are doing so because of flawed economic systems. If they had strong economies, they could have as much meat as they wanted.

Rights are one thing and morals are another. I would agree that you are within your rights to shoot a cattlethief. But it is still a sin.

I don't believe in rights. I would kill a rustler because it is moral to kill rustlers. It is the right thing to do.