View Full Version : Geert Wilders comes out of the closet as an anti-semite
HoreTore
09-03-2012, 09:48
I am not shocked (http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/israel-s-chief-rabbi-warns-dutch-populist-politician-over-kosher-slaughter-ban-1.461722).
The European far-right has always hated the jews. It was only a matter of time before the "new far-right" came out as antisemites, just like their older cousins.
It's not about "criticizing Islam". It's about hating everyone who do not look and act exactly as you do. And jews have toped the "people who are not like us"-list for a milennia.
Someone tell the White House to increase military spending. You'll need to rescue us from genocodal maniacs once again soon.
They should just shut up, jews aren't special what goes for muslims goes for jews as well. A ban on ritual slaughter is a good thing, go somewhere else if you don't like it. So jews will leave, so what. Bye.
rory_20_uk
09-03-2012, 10:05
Sorry, sounds more like the anti-semite card being played.
I don't think that this method of slaughter is appropriate.
I don't think that female genital mutilation is appropriate.
I don't think that throwing wives onto the funeral pyre of their dead husbands is appropriate.
I don't think ritually strangling strangers as a religious act is appropriate.
I don't think that stoning adulterers to death is appropriate
I don't think skinning Vikings alive and nailing their skin to church doors is appropriate.
I don't think segreggation based on colour is appropriate.
I don't think raping virgins to cure AIDS is appropriate.
Merely that all these practices have been done doesn't make them acceptable. I am not bothered who does them. If one practice I am against is practiced by a particular group that is their problem - not mine. If there are places that let them practice this then fine, but it not up to me to tolerate every ritual that is done by anyone.
~:smoking:
They can roll up their anti-semite card and shove it up their arse. No special treatment for jews, I don't get any because I like to howl at the moon either.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-03-2012, 10:19
I am not shocked (http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/israel-s-chief-rabbi-warns-dutch-populist-politician-over-kosher-slaughter-ban-1.461722).
The European far-right has always hated the jews. It was only a matter of time before the "new far-right" came out as antisemites, just like their older cousins.
It's not about "criticizing Islam". It's about hating everyone who do not look and act exactly as you do. And jews have toped the "people who are not like us"-list for a milennia.
Someone tell the White House to increase military spending. You'll need to rescue us from genocodal maniacs once again soon.
The Political Left is also anti-Semetic - note the extremely rough ride the Israeli dance company got at the Fringe just because they recieve money from the government (why shouldn't they, they don't support extreme Zionism as a result).
I can't find the article on the Guardian website but, according to the author, during the performance (interrupted by protestors) an 82-year old Dutchman turned to her and said, "Don't worry, this isn't Kristalnaught, I remember that."
So...
I don't support slaughter without some form of stunning, even if it's just a hammer blow to the head, does that made me an Anti-Semite?
HoreTore
09-03-2012, 10:22
The Political Left is also anti-Semetic - note the extremely rough ride the Israeli dance company got at the Fringe just because they recieve money from the government (why shouldn't they, they don't support extreme Zionism as a result).
I can't find the article on the Guardian website but, according to the author, during the performance (interrupted by protestors) an 82-year old Dutchman turned to her and said, "Don't worry, this isn't Kristalnaught, I remember that."
So...
I don't support slaughter without some form of stunning, even if it's just a hammer blow to the head, does that made me an Anti-Semite?
Do you affiliate yourself politically with Geert Wilders, PVC?
rory_20_uk
09-03-2012, 10:30
Do you affiliate yourself politically with Geert Wilders, PVC?
It is possible, if not highly likely, to agree with almost everyone on some point of other. The allies had common ground with Stalin, Hitler was anti smoking, the Mafia tends to be pro-family values (however distorted / corrupted their other values might be).
I agree with Wilders on this particular topic. Wilders might have an agenda that this helps further that I don't have.
~:smoking:
The Political Left is also anti-Semetic - note the extremely rough ride the Israeli dance company got at the Fringe just because they recieve money from the government (why shouldn't they, they don't support extreme Zionism as a result).
I can't find the article on the Guardian website but, according to the author, during the performance (interrupted by protestors) an 82-year old Dutchman turned to her and said, "Don't worry, this isn't Kristalnaught, I remember that."
So...
I don't support slaughter without some form of stunning, even if it's just a hammer blow to the head, does that made me an Anti-Semite?
There was no Krystalnacht in the Netherlands, I don't know what he remembers but he may be senile. Horetore is just pointing out the irony as Wilders is regarded as a hardcore Israel lover by the left. But for Wilders Israel is just the canary in the colemine. It is probably true that he gets funds from jewish organisations but as you can see he is not on their leash as the left keeps furiously screaming.
HoreTore
09-03-2012, 10:38
It is possible, if not highly likely, to agree with almost everyone on some point of other.
I know, and that's why I asked PVC, but not you.
As far as I know, PVC is a tory, but his post makes me wonder if he also supports Wilders and the parties he represents...
I know, and that's why I asked PVC, but not you.
As far as I know, PVC is a tory, but his post makes me wonder if he also supports Wilders and the parties he represents...
Which will naturally be a horrible thing to do. I don't vote on him but he's the only Dutch politician with some guts. Funny thing about lefties, they see fascim everywhere but they will never recognise it when looking into a mirror.
...
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-03-2012, 10:53
Do you affiliate yourself politically with Geert Wilders, PVC?
No, but I've been involved in the slaughter of animals, so I know they aren't dead until the blood stop flowing.
I'm also not a "Tory", I vote Tory currently because I happen to think our current Tory MP here is very good.
The point is - this is a non issue viz anti-Semitism, as is the issue of infant circumcision (sp?)
My decidedly jaundiced views on "Jewish" political identity should be fairly well known on this forum, they can be summed up in three words - no special pleading.
HoreTore
09-03-2012, 11:01
What makes this case both extremely amusing and quite worrying, is the fact that no move is made to ban either factory farming or the fur industry.
That makes it clear that actual animal welfare is far from their minds, and so the only thing that remains is good ol' fashioned jew-hate.
It could also be an attempt to whitewash the practices of modern farming. The slaughterhouse, kosher or not, is probably one of the nicest times in the life of the animal, much better than living in the average farmhouse.
If you actually care about animal welfare, the method of slaughter will be the last thing on your mind. There are so many worse practices. The transport makes the Auswitchz express look pleasant, the fur industry is industrialized sadism, animals are pumped up on stroids to the point where they can't move normally anymore, but hey, at least we don't give them any space to move anyway.
These are real issues. The open question of which method of slaughter causes the most pain is not a real issue.
Geert Wilders agenda is not about animal welfare, it's about making everyone else conform to one way of living. His way of living.
No, but I've been involved in the slaughter of animals, so I know they aren't dead until the blood stop flowing.
Those are just spasms, but why insist on the animal to be fully concious. Do that somewhere else. But Horetore proves himself to be a member of what we just LOVE call the leftist church here. If you agree with something Wilders says you are no longer 100% OK and must support everything Wilders says.
HoreTore
09-03-2012, 11:05
I'm also not a "Tory", I vote Tory currently because I happen to think our current Tory MP here is very good.
My apologies. I had the impression that you identified with the conservative party on a stronger basis than that.
I'll be sure to notify the Politbureau and have them update their lists....
HoreTore
09-03-2012, 11:11
Those are just spasms, but why insist on the animal to be fully concious. Do that somewhere else. But Horetore proves himself to be a member of what we just LOVE call the leftist church here. If you agree with something Wilders says you are no longer 100% OK and must support everything Wilders says.
I know I shouldn't respond to nonsense like this, but...
If what you say had any truth, frags, I would've asked rory as well. I didn't, mostly because my question wasn't based on PVC's agreement on kosher slaughter. It was rather based on a certain "X factor" of his post. The tone, the points made, the order the points were made etc all contributed to a certain undefinable thing that made me honestly wonder if he supported Wilders. As I thought he was a staunch Tory, that would be a rather dramatic shift in opinion, and such shifts are always interesting(at least to me).
To give an extreme example to conter your nonsense, a Neo-Nazi would agree that kosher slaughter should be banned. It's highly unlikely, however, that a neo-nazi would support Wilders.
rory_20_uk
09-03-2012, 11:12
But in the UK at least, this practice is banned for everyone else. Why the exception? To point at other things is merely deflection. The issue is simply - there is a law and it should apply to everyone. Want to ban the fur trade? Fine. For everyone, not except Cossacks as they need it for their hats.
Conform to his way of living. Probably. Sounds like a good idea to me. And interestingly on this issue, you are choosing to point out what goes on in a very permissive society:
In the news a Palestinian has immolated himself due to the conditions imposed by Israel
Pakistan has arrested a mentally retarded girl for having burnt pages of the Koran - which turns out was a plant as a local Cleric wants to get rid of Christians. Thi was under the blasphemy laws, but was also to try to stop the crowd rioting / lynching her and others.
The desecration in Timbuktu by... oh yes Islamic militants.
Not in the news, but Saudia Arabia / Birhain...
SO, to use your own standarrds, there are far bigger issues than what happens by dear ol' Geert. Why not focus on these far greater abuses?
~:smoking:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-03-2012, 11:13
What makes this case both extremely amusing and quite worrying, is the fact that no move is made to ban either factory farming or the fur industry.
That makes it clear that actual animal welfare is far from their minds, and so the only thing that remains is good ol' fashioned jew-hate.
It could also be an attempt to whitewash the practices of modern farming. The slaughterhouse, kosher or not, is probably one of the nicest times in the life of the animal, much better than living in the average farmhouse.
If you actually care about animal welfare, the method of slaughter will be the last thing on your mind. There are so many worse practices. The transport makes the Auswitchz express look pleasant, the fur industry is industrialized sadism, animals are pumped up on stroids to the point where they can't move normally anymore, but hey, at least we don't give them any space to move anyway.
These are real issues. The open question of which method of slaughter causes the most pain is not a real issue.
Geert Wilders agenda is not about animal welfare, it's about making everyone else conform to one way of living. His way of living.
You're assuming anti-Semitism when ignorance is a better explanation.
When I first went to university I explained the process of slaughter and butchery to some of the people in my Halls - they were horrified that I not only understood but had taken part in such things. One person actually described me as "sick" and wouldn't talk to me for a week - After a week he got over it and apolagised.
People have an extreme reaction to slaughter, it allows them to ignore the rest of the industrialised farming process and continue eating supermarket chicken.
There's nothing anti-Semitic about this law, it's populist, but it panders to people's sensibilities, not their prejudices.
Likewise, the fur trade is not "sadistic", it's is simply an unpleasent business.
HoreTore
09-03-2012, 11:24
Why not focus on these far greater abuses?
I don't? That's news to me.
The problem with your reasoning, is that they have taken an active stance on the other issues - and they say it's okay. If I had said that the issues you brought up are a-okay, then yes, you'd have a valid point. But I find them very not okay.
This isn't about which topics are being discussed right now, this is about the stance you take on the issues. I don't support banning kosher AND I find both blasphemy laws and desecration of Timbuktu to be wrong.
Wilders opposes kosher, but has no problem with the fur industry. That's the problem. If he had opposed the fur industry, for example, a ban on kosher is consistant with animal rights even if he doesn't make an active move to ban fur.
As for the slaughter regulations; they are in need of a remake, like most other regulations in agriculture. I have, however, sincere doubts that kosher slaughter inflicts more pain on the animal than other forms of slaughter. And frankly, unlike the way we transport our animals(for example), this kind of pain is quite acceptable to me. If you can't kill an animal without sedating them, how can you avoid banning hunting?
Hunting animals is okay with me, even though I know the animal feels pain(including the 10% who are only wounded). So why would I have a problem with a slaughter method that inflicts less pain?
I know I shouldn't respond to nonsense like this, but...
If what you say had any truth, frags, I would've asked rory as well. I didn't, mostly because my question wasn't based on PVC's agreement on kosher slaughter. It was rather based on a certain "X factor" of his post. The tone, the points made, the order the points were made etc all contributed to a certain undefinable thing that made me honestly wonder if he supported Wilders. As I thought he was a staunch Tory, that would be a rather dramatic shift in opinion, and such shifts are always interesting(at least to me).
To give an extreme example to conter your nonsense, a Neo-Nazi would agree that kosher slaughter should be banned. It's highly unlikely, however, that a neo-nazi would support Wilders.
Of course they wouldn't, they hate his guts, neo-nazi's vote socialist. Just kinda curious how you put PVC into Wilders territory, youknow, the mechanisms involved. But I already know the answer to that, the suffocating social control within the leftist church. You are either 100% OK or suspect. Leftist Lemmings are always looking for comfirmation
rory_20_uk
09-03-2012, 11:32
Fragony, lumping everyone in the left is ironically just as bad as what you claim they are doing.
~:smoking
HoreTore
09-03-2012, 11:33
You're assuming anti-Semitism when ignorance is a better explanation.
Good point.
We have removed ourselves far from the food we eat now. I believe we as a society could benefit from a better understanding of what the food goes through before it ends up on the plate, as part of our moral education. We kill animals in order to live, we should have a better understanding of what exactly that means.
Btw, I haven't worked at a slaughterhouse myself, but my ex did her bachelors on methods of slaughter, so I do know how it works.
Likewise, the fur trade is not "sadistic", it's is simply an unpleasent business.
While it may be a touch of hyperbole, I stand by my words. Food is a necessary product, fur is not. I define sadism as inflicting unnecessary pain, and so fur farms fits that description.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-03-2012, 11:39
I know I shouldn't respond to nonsense like this, but...
If what you say had any truth, frags, I would've asked rory as well. I didn't, mostly because my question wasn't based on PVC's agreement on kosher slaughter. It was rather based on a certain "X factor" of his post. The tone, the points made, the order the points were made etc all contributed to a certain undefinable thing that made me honestly wonder if he supported Wilders. As I thought he was a staunch Tory, that would be a rather dramatic shift in opinion, and such shifts are always interesting(at least to me).
To give an extreme example to conter your nonsense, a Neo-Nazi would agree that kosher slaughter should be banned. It's highly unlikely, however, that a neo-nazi would support Wilders.
The "X factor" you detect is my irritation with you for equating the far-right with anti-Semitism when it is the well known vise of populist European politcians from across the political spectrum - the reference I made to protests at the Festival was to illustrate the point that anti-Semitism is currently more popular and accepted on the Left. The current vise of the Right is anti-Muslim prejudice.
Technically, both are ant-Semiticm (or can be) but that wasn't the point you were making.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-03-2012, 11:42
Good point.
We have removed ourselves far from the food we eat now. I believe we as a society could benefit from a better understanding of what the food goes through before it ends up on the plate, as part of our moral education. We kill animals in order to live, we should have a better understanding of what exactly that means.
Btw, I haven't worked at a slaughterhouse myself, but my ex did her bachelors on methods of slaughter, so I do know how it works.
Technical knowledge is one thing, holding the sheep while your father cuts its throat is something else entirely.
Not nice, not nice at all.
While it may be a touch of hyperbole, I stand by my words. Food is a necessary product, fur is not. I define sadism as inflicting unnecessary pain, and so fur farms fits that description.
I take your point, fur as fashion is certainly vanity, but "Sadism" implies people derive pleasure from the suffering, when in fact most people obfusticate the suffering or practice cognitive dissoncance on the issue.
Fragony, lumping everyone in the left is ironically just as bad as what you claim they are doing.
~:smoking
It's just a certain type, you probably know which one. Not every leftie is a devout member of the leftist church, most vote for daddy's party, but the ones that are very leftist just don't understand that they are in fact deeply religious. I have little patience for absolute faith personally.
HoreTore
09-03-2012, 11:43
The "X factor" you detect is my irritation with you for equating the far-right with anti-Semitism when it is the well known vise of populist European politcians from across the political spectrum - the reference I made to protests at the Festival was to illustrate the point that anti-Semitism is currently more popular and accepted on the Left. The current vise of the Right is anti-Muslim prejudice.
Technically, both are ant-Semiticm (or can be) but that wasn't the point you were making.
I'm actually not politically active. The reason for that is because the party I would affiliate with engage in "criticism of Israel" that I find crosses the antisemitism-line way to regularly, and I don't want to be caught with such hatemongerers.
Bah, I guess I'll drop the socialists and go with the Greens in a few years...
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-03-2012, 11:47
I'm actually not politically active. The reason for that is because the party I would affiliate with engage in "criticism of Israel" that I find crosses the antisemitism-line way to regularly, and I don't want to be caught with such hatemongerers.
Bah, I guess I'll drop the socialists and go with the Greens in a few years...
Well, don't you think that speaks volumes?
How I feel about anti-Semitism, especially dressed up as Israel/banker-bashing should be fairly obvious by the amount of venom I poured on Ken Livingstone during the London Mayorla Election.
HoreTore
09-03-2012, 11:50
Well, don't you think that speaks volumes?
I do.
Hence why I haven't been a member of any party or organization since I was 19.
Furunculus
09-03-2012, 11:57
I am not shocked (http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/israel-s-chief-rabbi-warns-dutch-populist-politician-over-kosher-slaughter-ban-1.461722).
The European far-right has always hated the jews. It was only a matter of time before the "new far-right" came out as antisemites, just like their older cousins.
It's not about "criticizing Islam". It's about hating everyone who do not look and act exactly as you do. And jews have toped the "people who are not like us"-list for a milennia.
Someone tell the White House to increase military spending. You'll need to rescue us from genocodal maniacs once again soon.
just so we all understand what the hyperbole above is referring to let me present the title of the linked article:
"Israel’s chief rabbi warns Dutch populist politician over kosher slaughter ban"
Not exactly calling for the ovens to be set to maximum is he!
just so we all understand what the hyperbole above is referring to let me present the title of the linked article:
"Israel’s chief rabbi warns Dutch populist politician over kosher slaughter ban"
Not exactly calling for the ovens to be set to maximum is he!
Oh screw him, he got a perfectly fine wall to wail at in jeruzalem. Jews happy, we not all that bothered. Pretty nice eventually. Piss off is as mildly as I can put it, choke on your beard torah-jugend
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-03-2012, 12:22
I do.
Hence why I haven't been a member of any party or organization since I was 19.
So, the point of this Topic was to wind Frags up?
Because it appears to have worked.:rolleyes:
So, the point of this Topic was to wind Frags up?
Because it appears to have worked.:rolleyes:
Well yeah guilty, I don't even vote on him I vote for the Libertarian Party and always will. But Wilders's opponents are so much worse then Wilders himself, so much cheaper
I am not shocked (http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/israel-s-chief-rabbi-warns-dutch-populist-politician-over-kosher-slaughter-ban-1.461722).
The European far-right has always hated the jews. It was only a matter of time before the "new far-right" came out as antisemites, just like their older cousins.
It's not about "criticizing Islam". It's about hating everyone who do not look and act exactly as you do. And jews have toped the "people who are not like us"-list for a milennia.
Someone tell the White House to increase military spending. You'll need to rescue us from genocodal maniacs once again soon.
You did read that it all begun with bill that was proposed by an animal rights party and that passed the lower house?
Wilders, among, apparently, other political parties, supported that bill back then? Or he didn't?
Are all those parties who did support it in 2011 now "far right" and antisemites?
Do you consider animal rights activists potential genocidal maniacs?
What is antisemite in expecting everybody to respect certain legislation? No ritual slaught of animals. If you want to be offended and consider it anti-Islam or antisemite, then so be it. It has nothing to do with religion, but with animal rights.
No, but I've been involved in the slaughter of animals, so I know they aren't dead until the blood stop flowing.
A point that carries across to our species too:
" Wrist cutting is not usually life threatening and patients who self-mutilate know it."
Joel Paris, MD, (2004), Journal of Personality Disorders, The Guilford Press.
Even a libertarian like me will concede some freedoms if the reasoning is sound.
You did read that it was a bill proposed by an animal rights party?
Wilders, among, apparently, other political parties, supported that bill.
Are all those parties now "far right" and antisemites?
Do you consider animal rights activists potential genocidal maniacs?
What is antisemite in expecting everybody to respect certain legislation? No ritual slaught of animals. If you want to be offended and consider it anti-Islam or antisemite, then so be it. It has nothing to do with religion, but with animal rights.
Kinda sums it up. If religious jews think they have an ally in Wilders when it comes to religious slaughter or the jewish religion they are mistaken.
Also, the idea that being against ritual slaughter and holding the opinion that animals should be stunned first equals being an antisemite, a Muslim hater and probably also a racist, a far right adept and, why no, a neo-nazi and a genocidal maniac, is completely and utterly ridiculous, to say the least. In fact, it's so ridiculous that it becomes hilarious.
Wilders opposes kosher..
Or... maybe he wanted to oppose halal, but didn't realize that kosher is very similar?
Also, the idea that being against ritual slaughter and holding the opinion that animals should be stunned first equals being an antisemite, a Muslim hater and probably also a racist, a far right adept and, why no, a neo-nazi and a genocidal maniac, is completely and utterly ridiculous, to say the least. In fact, it's so ridiculous that it becomes hilarious.
Ritual slaughter isn't all that bad, but there are no exceptions because you believe in fairytales
You did read that it all begun with bill that was proposed by an animal rights party and that passed the lower house?
Which means the Dutch Party Animals are Nazis anti-semites too!
http://youtu.be/JngI1_8beoA
Major Robert Dump
09-03-2012, 13:26
I did not immediately read the article, and spent the first page saying to myself "I thought Gene Wilder was dead and I thought he ws a Canadian"
I don't know if this guy is being an anti semite so much as pretty anti religion in general, which I really dont have a problem with
I don't know if this guy is being an anti semite so much as pretty anti religion in general, which I really dont have a problem with
He is anti-islam most of all, too much imho as there are many flavours of Islam. If he would be more considerate of that he would have my vote.
Such laws have been passed and are in effect in Belgium and rightly so, if I may add. Is Belgium a fascist anti-Semite country now? If that Haredim bastion of Antwerps can deal with, so will the jews in the Netherlands. I don't get the deal really. If anything we should be shunning the religious extremist reaction, especially as they want to counter the democratic procedure of law making and equality in The Netherlands.
HoreTore
09-03-2012, 18:14
You did read that it all begun with bill that was proposed by an animal rights party and that passed the lower house?
Wilders, among, apparently, other political parties, supported that bill back then? Or he didn't?
Are all those parties who did support it in 2011 now "far right" and antisemites?
Do you consider animal rights activists potential genocidal maniacs?
What is antisemite in expecting everybody to respect certain legislation? No ritual slaught of animals. If you want to be offended and consider it anti-Islam or antisemite, then so be it. It has nothing to do with religion, but with animal rights.
See post #12.
When the only "animal rights" legislation you support is banning kosher, then yes, you are an antisemite.
The Belgian jews copes by importing meat, btw. Way to go outsourcing yet another industry!
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-03-2012, 20:17
See post #12.When the only "animal rights" legislation you support is banning kosher, then yes, you are an antisemite.The Belgian jews copes by importing meat, btw. Way to go outsourcing yet another industry!This is not a tenable position - Kosher slaughter would be illegal in most of the EU were it not for a special Jewish exemption, wanting to end that exemption is not anti-Semetic.
HoreTore
09-03-2012, 20:28
This is not a tenable position - Kosher slaughter would be illegal in most of the EU were it not for a special Jewish exemption, wanting to end that exemption is not anti-Semetic.
The counter argument to this has been written countless times by numerous writers far more eloquent than myself, there's no real reason for me to respond.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-03-2012, 20:35
The counter argument to this has been written countless times by numerous writers far more eloquent than myself, there's no real reason for me to respond.
Banning infant circumcision is fine too in my book.
I would like a response from you, I think both I and the others in this thread who have argued passionately and in good faith here deserve one. There is no logical reason for Jews or Muslims to be allowed special pleading in cases like this - in fact, in a secular society such is unacceptable.
Why should Europe pander to dietary laws designed for an arid climate and bronze age technology?
Kralizec
09-03-2012, 21:47
Wilders opposes kosher, but has no problem with the fur industry.
Wrong. Some time ago a law was passed to outlaw the mink fur industry in the coming years, and the PVV was one of the parties in favour.
Unsedated slaughter has been illegal for some time, but the law allowed exceptions for religious practices. I'm undecided on the issue, but the stance is not anti-semetic just because it happens to conflict with the Torah. If there were any Aztecs around, banning human sacrifices would not be racist either.
Of course people could have anti-semetic motives for doing so, but I seriously doubt that was the case for any of the politicians involved. It was an initiative of the Animal Party. One of the parties in favour at the time was the Labour Party, then lead by Job Cohen (I don't think he's religious, but his name should give you an idea how likely it is he is an anti-semite)
See post #12.
When the only "animal rights" legislation you support is banning kosher, then yes, you are an antisemite.
The Belgian jews copes by importing meat, btw. Way to go outsourcing yet another industry!
Apparantly I was wrong Belgium still allows it, outlawing was a big thing though. But it is forbidden in Sweden, Iceland and guess what? Norway.
Also your argument about importing kosher meat is not valid. The biggest producer and by far the largest exporter of Halal meat, which has the same condition and is a bigger industry than kosher meat, is New Zealand. It is also the main source of Halal meat in Europe. And guess what, again these animals were required by law to be sedated. Buyaka! In other words Norway is preventing their muslim and jewish civilians to break their traditional laws. And when they try by exporting, they are usually still breaking them without knowing it. You guys are evil! You should think about moving to another country.
Kinda scary a realisation that Horetore actually meant it. Lefties usually furiously scream that he's a puppet of the zionist movement. And now all of a sudden when jews don't get special treatment it's anti-semitism, at least make a choice. At first I thought Horetore apreciated the irony but I have always been terrible at leftist logic, I just don't see it
Sir Moody
09-04-2012, 12:38
Frag you really need to stop lumping the entire "left" into one group - the Left side of the political scale is made up of many different groups with varying views much like the Right is, and not everyone who aligns to the Left thinks the same thing
in this case I think Horetore is pushing it a little - I don't see where he made his leap to Anti-Semitism...
Wilders seems to be supporting the Ethical slaughter of animals - something I can wholly support
Frag you really need to stop lumping the entire "left" into one group - the Left side of the political scale is made up of many different groups with varying views much like the Right is, and not everyone who aligns to the Left thinks the same thing
in this case I think Horetore is pushing it a little - I don't see where he made his leap to Anti-Semitism...
Wilders seems to be supporting the Ethical slaughter of animals - something I can wholly support
I know, I am kinda returning the favour when doing so though, but you are of course right.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-04-2012, 13:49
Apparantly I was wrong Belgium still allows it, outlawing was a big thing though. But it is forbidden in Sweden, Iceland and guess what? Norway.
Also your argument about importing kosher meat is not valid. The biggest producer and by far the largest exporter of Halal meat, which has the same condition and is a bigger industry than kosher meat, is New Zealand. It is also the main source of Halal meat in Europe. And guess what, again these animals were required by law to be sedated. Buyaka! In other words Norway is preventing their muslim and jewish civilians to break their traditional laws. And when they try by exporting, they are usually still breaking them without knowing it. You guys are evil! You should think about moving to another country.
Well, by HoreTore's logic Norway MUST be ant-Semitic then because they still allow whaling, among other things.
Kralizec
09-04-2012, 15:36
I'm pretty sure that HoreTore raised this topic before, and that he thought that the Norse law was probably racist at the start as it was enacted in the late 1920-ies or something like that. Which is not an unreasonable assumption.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-05-2012, 02:30
I'm pretty sure that HoreTore raised this topic before, and that he thought that the Norse law was probably racist at the start as it was enacted in the late 1920-ies or something like that. Which is not an unreasonable assumption.
Possibly true - but they haven't repealed it since, despite becoming a bigger Kingdom of Peace and Love than the Frontroom.
There is a moral obligation to animals not to make them suffer unneeded cruelty, it is easy to understand this is not necessarily an anti-semite issue.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-05-2012, 02:42
There is a moral obligation to animals not to make them suffer unneeded cruelty, it is easy to understand this is not necessarily an anti-semite issue.
You can't have a moral relationship to a amoral entity 0 human beings have a moral obligation not to cause suffering because of how it reflects on us.
I'm pretty sure that HoreTore raised this topic before, and that he thought that the Norse law was probably racist at the start as it was enacted in the late 1920-ies or something like that. Which is not an unreasonable assumption.
I think that is true for the Netherlands as well, about the same time it was banned here I believe, law was reversed after the war. At the time, yeah probably anti-semitism. But it's utterly redicoulous to play that card now, and very very annoying. I don't hear the muslims complaining about having to sedate the animals, most already do so anyway. If it's such a big deal to jews they just move to a country where it is allowed. The import of kosher meat isn't banned so they should just shut up.
Frags makes a good point about the sedation of animals. I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense to ban kosher and halal slaughter outright. Interestingly, the Netherlands is one of the largest exporters of halal meat.
Papewaio
09-05-2012, 10:35
Humans are animals.
A secular democracies laws should apply as evenly as possible to all adult members. Religion should not be a trump card, if the religion can get enough votes to win in the voting then that is the way to do it. Also being a religion does not make its ruleset wiser, smarter or better automatically then the majority.
Religion is not a get out of jail card. Otherwise what stops the NT-Mayan apocolapse mixed with Aztecs from having a chocolate orgy finished with the ritual slaying of a member of the group. After all it's a religion.
Humans are animals.
A secular democracies laws should apply as evenly as possible to all adult members. Religion should not be a trump card, if the religion can get enough votes to win in the voting then that is the way to do it. Also being a religion does not make its ruleset wiser, smarter or better automatically then the majority.
Religion is not a get out of jail card. Otherwise what stops the NT-Mayan apocolapse mixed with Aztecs from having a chocolate orgy finished with the ritual slaying of a member of the group. After all it's a religion.
Agreed. I am really annoyed at what they insist this to be. It's not an attack on jews or muslims (muslims are not looking for pittytude I might add they are fine with it). It's rediculous to suggest otherwise. Jews get the same treatment as everybody else, must be hard on the chosen people, :daisy: off with the accusations
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-05-2012, 15:14
Frags makes a good point about the sedation of animals. I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense to ban kosher and halal slaughter outright. Interestingly, the Netherlands is one of the largest exporters of halal meat.
I believe both Kosher and Halal Law require the animal to be conscious when it dies.
I believe both Kosher and Halal Law require the animal to be conscious when it dies.
Can only speak for halal but the idea behind it is that animals shouldn't unnecesarily suffer, so sedating animals isn't such a big deal. Technically an animal that was confined isn't halal. Why jews are wailing I don't know.
Greyblades
09-05-2012, 16:22
After looking over wikipedia this is what I understand about the matter: the contention is that halal meat must be from an animal that has been slaughtered properly, (the head aligned to mecca, asking allah for permission/forgiveness, etc) particually that the animal is slaughtered by having it's neck sliced in a way that leaves the spinal cord intact as it left to drain of blood. That way the animal's heart still gets signals from the brain to pump expiditing the draining, this ensures as much of the blood as possible is removed from the body before it can clot. Meat that has blood clots in it cant be eaten because blood is one of the forbidden substances that a islamic person cannot eat (personally I think the thought process behind the laws forbidding other methods of slaughter is to avoid such blood clots).
The problem they have with physical blows, electrocution or drugs is that there is no guarentee that stunning the animal will not result in the animal dying before it has been drained, should that happen the heart will have stopped making the jugular cutting inefficient as there is nothing to drive out the blood, leaving enough in the viens and arteries to clot significantly before it can be drained any other way.
There is nothing in the Dhabihah artical about the tradition specifically demanding that the animal being concious, just that it's alive.
Fisherking
09-05-2012, 17:41
The whole Jewish Kosher thing is just about as much a red herring as the title of this thread.
I have not found where is says an animal must be concuss during the killing. Furthermore, the law is supposed to be open to new interpretations due to technological advancement or circumstance.
It would take a gathering of shochets and rabbis to decide what was to be done, not a politician who is not qualified in either field.
I am sure that religious communities will adapt without much hand wringing at all.
Greyblades
09-05-2012, 17:52
I am finding alot of the contentions about unfamiliar religions, on every side, are usually down to misenterpritations (intentional or otherwise) of beliefs and practices spread through ignorance, and a predisposition in humanity to believe the worst of anyone who is considered an opponant or enemy.
Actually that seems to be true of any subject of contention.
I also seem to be using "contention" alot and am hoping it means what I think it means.
Do note that there is no actual consensus about what halal constitutes. It mostly has to do with the ritual of slaughter, and the Qur'an says (paraphrasing): "that which has been made forbidden to you is the meat of animals slaughtered in the name of any other than Allah". As of right now there is no clear consensus, with some jurists stating that meat slaughtered by Christians and Jews is also halal.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-06-2012, 01:07
Do note that there is no actual consensus about what halal constitutes. It mostly has to do with the ritual of slaughter, and the Qur'an says (paraphrasing): "that which has been made forbidden to you is the meat of animals slaughtered in the name of any other than Allah". As of right now there is no clear consensus, with some jurists stating that meat slaughtered by Christians and Jews is also halal.
Which means that whether you chose to be offended or not is a matter of choice... interesting.
Of course, Christians don't slaughter their meet in the name of anything, unless is tries to escape. :laugh4:
Do note that there is no actual consensus about what halal constitutes. It mostly has to do with the ritual of slaughter, and the Qur'an says (paraphrasing): "that which has been made forbidden to you is the meat of animals slaughtered in the name of any other than Allah". As of right now there is no clear consensus, with some jurists stating that meat slaughtered by Christians and Jews is also halal.
Just a thought, can it be that it's actually sacrifice not slaughter? Paganism was well alive, and they sacrificed to various gods.
Fisherking
09-06-2012, 09:27
Every method of slaughter is going to start with a live animal. You want them to bleed out.
Both the Jewish and Islamic practices are designed to be a humane as they could. For the Jews animals sacrificed could not be eaten and even knives used for sacrifice could not be used for slaughter.
I know Jewish practices allow that an animal be on its back or standing. I have not read up on the other.
These just seem to be so that the animal is known as healthy and not dieing from something else that could be transmitted to people. It seems more like ritualized quality control.
Is there any proof of anti-religious intent by any of the Dutch Parliament? How many were even aware that this bill would have religious ramifications? Were any religious groups lobbying against the law?
So far, it looks more like ignorance than intent.
No proof at all, calling Wilders an antisemist is absurd, the neo-nazi's hate him for a reason. It was also backed by labour that by all means can be called a rather jewish-dominated lot, the Amsterdam part at least. Only the christian party's are opposed.
Just a thought, can it be that it's actually sacrifice not slaughter? Paganism was well alive, and they sacrificed to various gods.
Perhaps. I'm not an expert on pre-Islamic Arabia (Moros is, though) but I have two ideas:
1) Either its origins are contra-sacrifice: from what we know, Muhammad tried to eradicate superstition and idolatry throughout the Arabian peninsula. It could be that the verse is to be understood in the context of Muslim-pagan relations of the time.
2) It might have something to do with hygienical prescriptions, which actually makes more sense to me. It could be that people wanted to keep the slaughter of livestock within their own community, and this could very much be explained within the context of the prevention of diseases.
To be fair, I don't really know.
Given the historical contest it's not unthinkable that the original verse is : "that which has been made forbidden to you is the sacrificing of animals in the name of any other than Allah". For Mohammed the christian gods were the same one as allah, it would make sense that it's about ending polythism
I have no knowledge of ritual slaughter that wasn't to do with sacrifice (do note that sacrifice in most cultures of the era as far I remember did still mean the animal was eaten mostly by people themselves) or accompanying the death (especially camels, dromedaries or hybrids and horses). There was ritual hunting in eastern Yemen and Southern/Western Oman. I think the custom was mostly taken over from the Jews really.
So that would put it into quite another context. It depends on when these laws surfaced. Which is most certainly in the early Hellenistic age the latest. Probably even sooner. So that leaves us Babylonian, Persian and Egyptian customs that could have inspired or cause these laws. The latter had some strange laws about food and other stuff as well. So likely a lot of those rules might have Egyptian origins. Truth be told, I might be pretty wrong. But well what I can say is that as far as I known there wasn't a direct cause for these rules or that sentence in the Qur'an, when it comes to Arabia.
So if I get this right I just thought of something really smart
So if I get this right I just thought of something really smart
Yeah, but my bet is on Egypt.
Also that article about the evolution of jewish identity and religion, I'll be able to pass it monday.
Yeah, but my bet is on Egypt.
Also that article about the evolution of jewish identity and religion, I'll be able to pass it monday.
Gracias
I'm not sure if the verb to slaughter is literally used:
"innamâ harrama ³aleykum al-maytata wa ad-damma wa lahma alkhinzîri wa mâ uhilla bihi ligayru allah"
Translated:
"indeed he has only made forbidden unto you the deceased and the blood and flesh of the swine and that which has been incantated upon something else from God".
[I]uhilla being the passive form of form/stem II of "ahala" which carries the meaning of "to make fit or suited, to fit; to qualify; to make accessible; to welcome" (Hans Wehr, Fourth Edition).
So no direct notion of either "slaughter" or "sacrifice" there.
Kralizec
09-06-2012, 21:40
(do note that sacrifice in most cultures of the era as far I remember did still mean the animal was eaten mostly by people themselves)
The jewish religion did this as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korban
I'm not sure if the verb to slaughter is literally used:
Translated:
"indeed he has only made forbidden unto you the deceased and the blood and flesh of the swine and that which has been incantated upon something else from God".
[I]uhilla being the passive form of form/stem II of "ahala" which carries the meaning of "to make fit or suited, to fit; to qualify; to make accessible; to welcome" (Hans Wehr, Fourth Edition).
So no direct notion of either "slaughter" or "sacrifice" there.
Hard to get anythin from that, but the swine? That's odd
Not so much. In the days of yore, pork was prone to all kinds of nasty diseases and infections, so it was actually a threat to public health. Apart from that, there's been a taboo on pork because of the fact that pigs are omnivores and roll around in mud and excrement.
Tellos Athenaios
09-08-2012, 17:17
Hard to get anythin from that, but the swine? That's odd
Not when you consider hogs will eat pretty much everything including corpses.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-08-2012, 22:12
Not so much. In the days of yore, pork was prone to all kinds of nasty diseases and infections, so it was actually a threat to public health. Apart from that, there's been a taboo on pork because of the fact that pigs are omnivores and roll around in mud and excrement.
The diseases and the omnivorous nature of swine are intrinsically linked - as a rule you shouldn't eat meat eaters, and you should avoid direct contact with them. Most Europeans have taboos about eating dogs, badgers, foxes etc. it's actually quite strange that we eat pork. Until you consider how much curing most pork goes through prior to consumption.
HoreTore
09-11-2012, 12:07
Wrong. Some time ago a law was passed to outlaw the mink fur industry in the coming years, and the PVV was one of the parties in favour.
That fact closes the thread IMO.
I must confess that I have no deeper knowledge of PVV's policy, and have simply lumped them into the big group called "far-right parties of Europe". In particular, I transfer the policies of the the Norwegian Progress Party to them. They may not be very similar, however.
So, to conclude, Wilders is not proven to be an antisemite. I still believe demanding animals to be unconcious before slaughter is ridiculous, however, as we allow hunting and see nothing wrong with it(at least I don't...). Opposing jewish rituals, like kosher, has been the staple antisemitism in europe for centuries, so anyone specifically targetting kosher will normally out themselves in a rather gloomy light.
That would normally go for male circumcision as well, an interesting point PVC brought up. Naturally, if all you do is oppose the jewish kind and none of the related practices, your label is crystal clear. But it can also be argued as part of a reasoning on where the right of the parents end and where the rights of the child begins. That's quite interesting, and I might bug you all with that one at a later date, particularly if I find an angle like I did for this thread...
That fact closes the thread IMO.
I must confess that I have no deeper knowledge of PVV's policy, and have simply lumped them into the big group called "far-right parties of Europe". In particular, I transfer the policies of the the Norwegian Progress Party to them. They may not be very similar, however.
So, to conclude, Wilders is not proven to be an antisemite. I still believe demanding animals to be unconcious before slaughter is ridiculous, however, as we allow hunting and see nothing wrong with it(at least I don't...). Opposing jewish rituals, like kosher, has been the staple antisemitism in europe for centuries, so anyone specifically targetting kosher will normally out themselves in a rather gloomy light.
That would normally go for male circumcision as well, an interesting point PVC brought up. Naturally, if all you do is oppose the jewish kind and none of the related practices, your label is crystal clear. But it can also be argued as part of a reasoning on where the right of the parents end and where the rights of the child begins. That's quite interesting, and I might bug you all with that one at a later date, particularly if I find an angle like I did for this thread...
Usually he is accused of being a puppet of the zionist movement in Israel and the US because he gets funds from them (I assume this is true it was never proven though). Personally I think demanding excemptions from what is mandatory here, ie stunning animals, because you believe in fairytales is much more rediculous. Get with it or get out.
HoreTore
09-11-2012, 14:04
Usually he is accused of being a puppet of the zionist movement in Israel and the US because he gets funds from them (I assume this is true it was never proven though). Personally I think demanding excemptions from what is mandatory here, ie stunning animals, because you believe in fairytales is much more rediculous. Get with it or get out.
Do you have a ban on hunting as well? Or do you support a ban on hunting, at least?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-11-2012, 14:38
Do you have a ban on hunting as well? Or do you support a ban on hunting, at least?
That's a complex question.
You need to define "hunting" before Frags can be expected to answer it.
Do you have a ban on hunting as well
No ban, but it's very restricted
HoreTore
09-11-2012, 14:51
That's a complex question.
You need to define "hunting" before Frags can be expected to answer it.
I'm referring to the kind that's legal over basically all of Europe.
But meh, if you want specifics, have a go at the Moose hunt we do in Norway every autumn.
The point is that if one supports such hunting, one must assume that one is comfortable with animal lives being taken that way. If so, it seems weird that one wishes to implement restrictions in one field, but not the other. To conclude, if you support hunting, you should also support methods of slaughter which are no more cruel than hunting.
And no kind of either halal or kosher slaughter is worse than hunting.
The point is that if one supports such hunting, one must assume that one is comfortable with animal lives being taken that way. If so, it seems weird that one wishes to implement restrictions in one field, but not the other. To conclude, if you support hunting, you should also support methods of slaughter which are no more cruel than hunting.
And no kind of either halal or kosher slaughter is worse than hunting.
Well that's a bad argument. It's about the least cruel way of killing an animal in a situation. The amount of stress at slaughter house is already much more than a hundred fold that of those hunted, then we have those animals that do not die and are hooked and conveyor belted alive for production. (I'd post you some movies on animal slaughter practices that show how horrible standard practices are, especially in the US though we're not that much better) But as I said even when disregarding this, it's about the least cruel way possible considering the situation. During a hunt you don't have the same means for making the animal not suffer.
However that doesn't mean I'm pro hunting in general. Quite the contrary especially when performed as leisure. When needed for a sources of in come or food well then that's nature's nature. But if it is just a way to get away from the wife, well just go to a bar. No need to kill animals.
I'm referring to the kind that's legal over basically all of Europe.
But meh, if you want specifics, have a go at the Moose hunt we do in Norway every autumn.
The point is that if one supports such hunting, one must assume that one is comfortable with animal lives being taken that way. If so, it seems weird that one wishes to implement restrictions in one field, but not the other. To conclude, if you support hunting, you should also support methods of slaughter which are no more cruel than hunting.
And no kind of either halal or kosher slaughter is worse than hunting.
They got an excemption because of their religion. You agree with that? These are our rules and we stun animals, basta.
HoreTore
09-11-2012, 15:16
They got an excemption because of their religion. You agree with that? These are our rules and we stun animals, basta.
We don't stun the animal while hunting. So it would seem that the jews already "play by our rules". What we want them to do, is play by rules we don't have. That seems weird.
As for the points Moros makes; I can't really see how any of that is relevant to a kosher/no kosher debate...
We don't stun the animal while hunting. So it would seem that the jews already "play by our rules". What we want them to do, is play by rules we don't have. That seems weird.
As for the points Moros makes; I can't really see how any of that is relevant to a kosher/no kosher debate...
But it are rules we have, do you see any extra benefit in the animal having to be concious. That's what upsets them that they can't be sure the animal is fully concious. Should we have any patience for that I think not.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-11-2012, 15:22
I'm referring to the kind that's legal over basically all of Europe.
But meh, if you want specifics, have a go at the Moose hunt we do in Norway every autumn.
The point is that if one supports such hunting, one must assume that one is comfortable with animal lives being taken that way. If so, it seems weird that one wishes to implement restrictions in one field, but not the other. To conclude, if you support hunting, you should also support methods of slaughter which are no more cruel than hunting.
And no kind of either halal or kosher slaughter is worse than hunting.
What kind?
Packs of hounds? Guns? Flush to guns with dogs? Stalking?
I don't think you've given this question much thought or study.
Kralizec
09-11-2012, 15:36
Do you stun whales before you harpoon them?
HoreTore
09-11-2012, 16:31
What kind?
Packs of hounds? Guns? Flush to guns with dogs? Stalking?
I don't think you've given this question much thought or study.
All of them, if you'd like.
Though I do believe I answered your question with more specifics, try reading it again.
HoreTore
09-11-2012, 16:33
Do you stun whales before you harpoon them?
Hooray! Someone brought up whaling!
I also fully support whaling, of course. But the rest of you dimwits seem to have a big issue with our brand of Whale Love, so unfortunately I can't use it as an argument... I doubt Wilders is a big fan of whaling, however fun it may be.
Hooray! Someone brought up whaling!
I also fully support whaling, of course. But the rest of you dimwits seem to have a big issue with our brand of Whale Love, so unfortunately I can't use it as an argument... I doubt Wilders is a big fan of whaling, however fun it may be.
That makes your fur industry-point a bit confusing
As for the points Moros makes; I can't really see how any of that is relevant to a kosher/no kosher debate...
As it was a response to your point. I can't but help to feel, you just shot your own argument.
Secondly the failing of killing an animal succesfully, the stress and animals being processed alive and concious is something that is prevented or limited by sedation.
Also it's funny how we are still debating this as Frags and many other have already stated. Why would one make exemptions based on religion on the first place? It's discrimination for one. If we want everyone to be able to decide what is morally acceptable for them, then why have laws in the first place? If there are exceptions in a law there should be good reasons for it, personal moral views aren't those. The Sharia surely isn't either.
HoreTore
09-11-2012, 18:49
That makes your fur industry-point a bit confusing
Whales be fer eatin'. Foxes be fer wearin'.
I like food. I like meat. I like sea-food. I don't like being hungry. Nor do I like upper-class old hags torturing animals so they can wear expensive clothing cheaply and look like crap.
Enough of an answer?
As it was a response to your point. I can't but help to feel, you just shot your own argument.
Hm? You stated that the level of stress is high in the slaughterhouse. True. Kosher slaughter won't affect the level of stress though. How 'bout trying to reduce the level of stress in the slaughterhouse then? You know, making actual progress instead of symbolic action? Same goes for animals not properly slaughtered, no need to ban kosher to fix that. Both of these suggestions will increase the price of meat though, as it will mean added expensives for the meat producer. I guess it's a lot easier to pass laws which inconvenience others than laws which inconvenience ourselves.
Hm? You stated that the level of stress is high in the slaughterhouse. True. Kosher slaughter won't affect the level of stress though. How 'bout trying to reduce the level of stress in the slaughterhouse then? You know, making actual progress instead of symbolic action? Same goes for animals not properly slaughtered, no need to ban kosher to fix that. Both of these suggestions will increase the price of meat though, as it will mean added expensives for the meat producer. I guess it's a lot easier to pass laws which inconvenience others than laws which inconvenience ourselves.
Yes it is. Sedation helps to reduce animal suffering. Are you familiar with the concept of sedation?
Also excuse my vary late edit to my previous post, but it was dinner time while I was writing.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-11-2012, 19:29
All of them, if you'd like.
Though I do believe I answered your question with more specifics, try reading it again.
I don't know anything about moose hunting, so you didn't, and lots of types of hunting are legal across Europe.
If you stalk moose the way we stalk hart then I can't see how that could possibly be cruel - the animal literally doesn't know what's hit it, it falls dead as soon as shot.
HoreTore
09-11-2012, 21:46
I don't know anything about moose hunting, so you didn't, and lots of types of hunting are legal across Europe.
If you stalk moose the way we stalk hart then I can't see how that could possibly be cruel - the animal literally doesn't know what's hit it, it falls dead as soon as shot.
Cruel? Of course it's not - just like kosher slaughter isn't cruel either.
As for your demand for more details on hunting - frags managed to answer just fine.
Cruel? Of course it's not - just like kosher slaughter isn't cruel either.
Not necesarily, but kosher also means that a cut gone wrong kinda changes things, because of fairytales a second cut won't be made and it can last a very mean long time.
HoreTore
09-11-2012, 22:48
Not necesarily, but kosher also means that a cut gone wrong kinda changes things, because of fairytales a second cut won't be made and it can last a very mean long time.
Bah, with our slaughter techniques we boil a hefty amount of chickens alive, to name one example.
I still eat chicken though.
Bah, with our slaughter techniques we boil a hefty amount of chickens alive, to name one example.
I still eat chicken though.
That's not boiling that is electrified water, it stuns them
HoreTore
09-11-2012, 23:40
That's not boiling that is electrified water, it stuns them
Ah yes, the electrified water that's supposed to stun them. Unfortunately, quite a few of them die in that water, so what happened to "no slaugher without sedation", eh? That's one end of the scale, on the other end some come out without sedation at all, alive and kicking when they meet the whirring blades. And when the chicken is alive at the blade, they often squirm out of the way, before they finally die when they're boiled alive.
That's one way, the other is gassing them with CO2. That results in less chickens dying from what was supposed to sedate them, but even more chickens come of the chamber without sedation, resulting in the aforementioned boiling death.
Wonderful, eh? So humane, compared to those rotten joos....
Ah yes, the electrified water that's supposed to stun them. Unfortunately, quite a few of them die in that water, so what happened to "no slaugher without sedation", eh? That's one end of the scale, on the other end some come out without sedation at all, alive and kicking when they meet the whirring blades. And when the chicken is alive at the blade, they often squirm out of the way, before they finally die when they're boiled alive.
That's one way, the other is gassing them with CO2. That results in less chickens dying from what was supposed to sedate them, but even more chickens come of the chamber without sedation, resulting in the aforementioned boiling death.
Wonderful, eh? So humane, compared to those rotten joos....
If the shock that is supposed to knock them out of concious, kills them then the same effect was achieved. Also a good job trying to get a lot of other examples throw away the one and single important thing that is to be remember from this argument. There is no, one single reasons, why someone should be exempt from laws by basis of religion. You're discriminating. You're making people unequal. A personal system of believes or morals shouldn't result in your personal law. Psychopaths might believe they were right in killing people, maybe they think God wants them too. Sure that may be different and a ridiculous example, but where draw the line.Official religions? That would make a mess and would discriminate the atheïsts for one. Also when does what rule apply, converting to other religions for mild punishments,...?
HoreTore you are being ridiculous and you know it. God, I hope you know it.
HoreTore
09-12-2012, 00:16
If the shock that is supposed to knock them out of concious, kills them then the same effect was achieved. Also a good job trying to get a lot of other examples throw away the one and single important thing that is to be remember from this argument. There is no, one single reasons, why someone should be exempt from laws by basis of religion. You're discriminating. You're making people unequal. A personal system of believes or morals shouldn't result in your personal law. Psychopaths might believe they were right in killing people, maybe they think God wants them too. Sure that may be different and a ridiculous example, but where draw the line.Official religions? That would make a mess and would discriminate the atheïsts for one. Also when does what rule apply, converting to other religions for mild punishments,...?
HoreTore you are being ridiculous and you know it. God, I hope you know it.
I'm not arguing for religious exemptions, I'm arguing that the method of slaughter called kosher meets the "humane" standard and is a perfectly fine way to kill an animal.
I'm not arguing for religious exemptions, I'm arguing that the method of slaughter called kosher meets the "humane" standard and is a perfectly fine way to kill an animal.
Sorry to butt in, but I'm surprised you're still arguing about it. Seriously, who gives a crap? Wilders is entitled to think that kosher method is inhumane while other methods are. That doesn't make him an antisemite in any way, shape or form.
HoreTore
09-12-2012, 00:21
Sorry to butt in, but I'm surprised you're still arguing about it. Seriously, who gives a crap? Wilders is entitled to think that kosher method is inhumane while other methods are. That doesn't make him an antisemite in any way, shape or form.
The main method of persecution of jews in Europe has always been to target their various rituals. The blood jews, the well poisoners, etc.
Thus, a European majority representive targetting jewish rituals should naturally be examined closely.
In Detroit they say: "Nigga please."
I'm not arguing for religious exemptions, I'm arguing that the method of slaughter called kosher meets the "humane" standard and is a perfectly fine way to kill an animal.
Well apparently the Dutch disagree and apparently so did the Norse. And if the majority of the Dutch feel that way it is logical and normal that they decide to put it in law. That's democracy. Whether or not you agree. Cuius regio, eius leges.
It has no point in arguing what you find acceptable. I'm sure you know what you find and don't find acceptable. No relevancy to the Dutch our their legislation, nor to any Dutch politician. If it's yourself and your personal views you want to be the subject of thread, you should put that into the title and or the opening post. ~:)
Edit:
The main method of persecution of jews in Europe has always been to target their various rituals. The blood jews, the well poisoners, etc.
Thus, a European majority representive targetting jewish rituals should naturally be examined closely.
Only be making exceptions to laws, do you target people, silly. Also I believe you were not debating those?
HoreTore
09-12-2012, 00:50
Also I believe you were not debating those?
Read post #82 to see the end of the points in the OP, read posts #83 and #84 to see the new point being debated.
As for your thoughts on democracy, I will only note that you made Stalin blush with your collectivist views...
I will only note that you made Stalin blush with your collectivist views...
Jelly?
HoreTore
09-12-2012, 01:05
Jelly?
Nah, I'm only collectivist when it comes to economics ~;)
Nah, I'm only collectivist when it comes to economics ~;)
And you are allowed to teach!? Heavens me. Catholic schools help our children!
Ah yes, the electrified water that's supposed to stun them. Unfortunately, quite a few of them die in that water, so what happened to "no slaugher without sedation", eh? That's one end of the scale, on the other end some come out without sedation at all, alive and kicking when they meet the whirring blades. And when the chicken is alive at the blade, they often squirm out of the way, before they finally die when they're boiled alive.
That's one way, the other is gassing them with CO2. That results in less chickens dying from what was supposed to sedate them, but even more chickens come of the chamber without sedation, resulting in the aforementioned boiling death.
Wonderful, eh? So humane, compared to those rotten joos....
We are really talking about different things here, it's not about the jews it's about the animals. If they don't like having their special treatment because of religious rules being revoked there is this mythical place called 'somewhere else'. They can still import it if they insist on kosher. I am pretty sure only a very small amount of jews are upset about this 100 or so max, the rest munch porkchops like the best of us. If you want to see orthodox jews in the wild you have to go to our southern neighbours.
No idea what you mean with boiling death by the way
Ironside
09-12-2012, 09:20
Whales be fer eatin'. Foxes be fer wearin'.
I like food. I like meat. I like sea-food. I don't like being hungry. Nor do I like upper-class old hags torturing animals so they can wear expensive clothing cheaply and look like crap.
Enough of an answer?
Do you need to eat whales? No. Is it rare and therefore exclusive (and probably expensive. If it's cheap then things get even more fun)? Yes.
You're doing what they're doing, only appealing to your taste buds, instead of sight and touch.
HoreTore
09-12-2012, 12:52
No idea what you mean with boiling death by the way
Chickens are boiled after chopping its head in order to remove its feathers. If it avoids the blade, then it's still alive when it's boiled. No chance of escaping that part alive though, that's a definite end.
Do you need to eat whales? No. Is it rare and therefore exclusive (and probably expensive. If it's cheap then things get even more fun)? Yes.
You're doing what they're doing, only appealing to your taste buds, instead of sight and touch.
Rare? Exclusive? Expensive? Whale beef?
See, this is what you get for being born in the east bloc, where you can't have any fun on the seas. Whale beef has been considered very cheap food for ages, a lot of it fed to animals. Under the level of cod, in other words.
Due it not being possible to produce it on the industrial scale required nowadays, however, it has fallen out of use. There have been some attempts during the last decade to reintroduce whales as a "normal" dinner, but it's a long way from catching on.you do get it in plenty of stores, but since it's not a big hit you mostly get it frozen(as you can't sell it fast enough to keep it fresh), further limiting its viability.
A shame really, since I like the taste...
Whales(certain kinds) are an enviromentally sustainable resource, and in a hungry world there's no point in letting viable resources rot away. Much better to have it fill our bellies than rot in the ocean. Overfishing is a problem, but overfishing is a problem for every fish resource. The stock needs to be regulated heavily, like all other fish is. If that's done sensibly, I see no reason not to man the harpoons. And speaking of fish: how is the "all animals should be sedated before they're killed"-motto doing in that business?
10% of the moose being shot is only wounded, but that doesn't stop me from eating moose.
I make other animals suffer and die so I can eat well and live. More people should be aware of that fact, instead of living in the illusion that the meat they have on their plate is produced by rainbows, sunshine and sparkling stars. I believe that will create a society with a healthier respect for food and the animals we eat.
'Chickens are boiled after chopping its head in order to remove its feathers'
You mean after chopping of it's head it's soul is still dancing?
HoreTore
09-12-2012, 13:13
'Chickens are boiled after chopping its head in order to remove its feathers'
You mean after chopping of it's head it's soul is still dancing?
No. I've said it already, but I'll repeat it:
Some chickens are not properly sedated. When that happens(and it could also happen while sedated, but that's rare), the chicken squirms out of the way of the blade. Thus, the head is still attached and the chicken alive and kicking when it gets to the next stop on the line, which is to boil it and remove the feathers.
No. I've said it already, but I'll repeat it:
Some chickens are not properly sedated. When that happens(and it could also happen while sedated, but that's rare), the chicken squirms out of the way of the blade. Thus, the head is still attached and the chicken alive and kicking when it gets to the next stop on the line, which is to boil it and remove the feathers.
I worked in a chicken factory as you call it, head goes first and it's impossible that the water doesn't stun them, it would knock out anyone
HoreTore
09-12-2012, 13:25
I worked in a chicken factory as you call it, head goes first and it's impossible that the water doesn't stun them, it would knock out anyone
This parliament bill (http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/lmd/dok/regpubl/stmeld/20022003/stmeld-nr-12-2002-2003-/6/2/8.html?id=328447) explains that jittery birds as well as shorter birds often avoid the electric bath, thus avoiding the sedation. I can try digging up an english-language source if you want.
The commonly stated percentage of birds who are not sedated is about 1%. In Norway, that means about 1000 birds are boiled alive every day.
Enjoy your chicken tikka tonight ~;)
This parliament bill (http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/lmd/dok/regpubl/stmeld/20022003/stmeld-nr-12-2002-2003-/6/2/8.html?id=328447) explains that jittery birds as well as shorter birds often avoid the electric bath, thus avoiding the sedation. I can try digging up an english-language source if you want.
The commonly stated percentage of birds who are not sedated is about 1%. In Norway, that means about 1000 birds are boiled alive every day.
Enjoy your chicken tikka tonight ~;)
They go completely underwater that is total bull you have there.
On the subject of animal cruelty and slaughter you rather might want to aim your arrows at the US of A.
Google/youtube KFC Chicken slaughter house (ignore Pamela) or Cruelty at New York's Largest Dairy Farm.
Of course there's a wealth of related videos as well.
HoreTore
09-12-2012, 15:44
On the subject of animal cruelty and slaughter you rather might want to aim your arrows at the US of A.
Google/youtube KFC Chicken slaughter house (ignore Pamela) or Cruelty at New York's Largest Dairy Farm.
Of course there's a wealth of related videos as well.
I already know about factory farming.
This is one of the points I've made in this thread: if you care about animal welfare, factory farming techniques is the place to start, not kosher slaughter.
Fragolini: three things cause boiling live chickens at slaughterhouses:
1. Jittery chickens evading the bath
2. Short chickens not being dipped
3. The voltage in the bath not being sufficient enough to stun them properly
These are all extremely well documented, saying that it doesn't happen is, to use your language, bull.
Another point is of course how nice it is for the chicken to hang upside down or being pumped full of growth hormones.
Calling kosher "inhumane" while pretending our way of handling animals is all fine and dandy is laughable. Btw, another thing I support is clubbing baby seals(and not the kind where to hang out in bars). The seals have lives several times better than a western cow, clubbing them are among the most humane ways to handle animals.
Kralizec
09-12-2012, 16:10
I think Frag's point is that in his slaughterhouse the chickens are fully immersed in water and that there's no chance any of them avoiding the shock. Maybe Dutch and Norse companies do things differently.
As for other issues with the meat industry, the point is moot unless (and I'm not aware of this) kosher and halal butchers use a different source of animals than the rest of the meat industry.
However you could argue that the method of slaughtering pales in comparison to the unpleasant existance animals have in the industry, both regular and religious, so that a marginal improvement in slaughtering is a drop on a hot plate for animal welfare while OTOH it significantly affects religious communities. Which is why I'm undecided on the issue itself.
HoreTore
09-12-2012, 16:26
I think Frag's point is that in his slaughterhouse the chickens are fully immersed in water and that there's no chance any of them avoiding the shock. Maybe Dutch and Norse companies do things differently.
I know that's the point he's making. Thatbwould still be subject to cause #3, however. It may well be that you dutchies have different slaughterhouses than we do(and our biggest one uses gas, btw). It seems that immersing the chicken in water solves #1 and #2, but that's not something I can comment on, not being familiar with it.
As for other issues with the meat industry, the point is moot unless (and I'm not aware of this) kosher and halal butchers use a different source of animals than the rest of the meat industry.
However you could argue that the method of slaughtering pales in comparison to the unpleasant existance animals have in the industry, both regular and religious, so that a marginal improvement in slaughtering is a drop on a hot plate for animal welfare while OTOH it significantly affects religious communities. Which is why I'm undecided on the issue itself.
That's precisely the argument I'm making.
You are taking as you please you are not interested in any argument it seems
'so that a marginal improvement in slaughtering is a drop on a hot plate for animal welfare while OTOH it significantly affects religious communities. Which is why I'm undecided on the issue itself.'
You surprise me there Kraz, since when should one give a crap about it
HoreTore
09-12-2012, 17:08
You surprise me there Kraz, since when should one give a crap about it
Minorites, as they belong to the group "people in general", should be allowed to live their lives as they please, unless there are heavy arguments against their practice.
If you don't see any heavy arguments against it, then the default answer is to allow it.
Minorites, as they belong to the group "people in general", should be allowed to live their lives as they please, unless there are heavy arguments against their practice.
If you don't see any heavy arguments against it, then the default answer is to allow it.
It not being allowed is a pretty hard argument. It's just not allowed here to not sedate animals. I am glad this moronic excemtion for people who believe in fairytales is gone.
HoreTore
09-12-2012, 17:28
It not being allowed is a pretty hard argument. It's just not allowed here to not sedate animals. I am glad this moronic excemtion for people who believe in fairytales is gone.
Is the basis of the nation that everything is allowed unless prohibited, or is it that everything is prohibited unless allowed?
And in general, that something is the law is of course not an argument in favour of said law. You need to use an actual argument.
Is the basis of the nation that everything is allowed unless prohibited, or is it that everything is prohibited unless allowed?
And in general, that something is the law is of course not an argument in favour of said law. You need to use an actual argument.
Argument is simple, no special treatment.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.