Possible ban on halal/kosher meat in the Neds

Without applying sedation first that is, orthodox jews and to a lesser extend muslims are crying foul over this complete with the inevitable Godwins.

We have been on this road before but would like to know what you think anyway as it's quite the discussion here. Halal and kosher isn't cruel if the butcher is able, but if the animal isn't properly cut it will suffer for quite some time as the job won't be finished because imaginary friends say it has to be one single cut, it can last for minutes and the animal is fully concious. I have zero patience with their religion personally, they can move to Israel or Muslimstan if it's that big a deal, or import it.

I think making it illegal is a bad idea, as it is not a fight worth fighting. Regulating the practice with heavy fines for breaches is OK.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

I think making it illegal is a bad idea, as it is not a fight worth fighting. Regulating the practice with heavy fines for breaches is OK.

~:smoking:

---

What breaches, if the animal is sedated it's no longer kosher/halal, same with a second cut, so it's basicly a full ban. I'm ok with that I don't find their spicelaws as important as a quik and painless death for the animal. I know muslims to be flexible with this and most butchers will cut twice, but orthodox jews are united in pitytude. Screw that, get with it or wail at your wall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

What breaches, if the animal is sedated it's no longer kosher/halal, same with a second cut, so it's basicly a full ban. I'm ok with that I don't find their spicelaws as important as a quik and painless death for the animal. I know muslims to be flexible with this and most butchers will cut twice, but orthodox jews are united in pitytude. Screw that, get with it or wail at your wall.

---

Says the person who has his proclamation of support to Israel in his signature :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

Says the person who has his proclamation of support to Israel in his signature :clown:

---

I indiscriminately discriminate :bow:

hey, does this meant I can properly sedate a dog and slaughter it for eating afterwards when I come to Netherlands? or some Cats? I'd love to take part time job on Dog control team that way :D

/sarcasm

what's the point of banning halal/kosher foods because they're cruel? if you think eating animals is cruel, go vegan then :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

hey, does this meant I can properly sedate a dog and slaughter it for eating afterwards when I come to Netherlands? or some Cats? I'd love to take part time job on Dog control team that way :D

/sarcasm

what's the point of banning halal/kosher foods because they're cruel? if you think eating animals is cruel, go vegan then :D

---

Meat is good. But making ammends to people with imaginary friends is not, if the animal suffers because they don't want to finish it of, well no

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Meat is good. But making ammends to people with imaginary friends is not, if the animal suffers because they don't want to finish it of, well no

---

If you have some experience with properly slaughtering animals via simple cut to the neck, you can see it yourself that a the animals in question doesn't suffer much. A sharp knife cut their neck, and quickly drain their blood, will result in death very quickly, about 3 minutes or 4, typically. And if you eat sedated animals, you'll also eat the chemichal compounds, especially if the sedative is halogen-derivative, that'll be harmful to human body.

BTW: Snapping the neck of Chickens typically result in instant death, if you can do that for cows, however...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

If you have some experience with properly slaughtering animals via simple cut to the neck, you can see it yourself that a the animals in question doesn't suffer much. A sharp knife cut their neck, and quickly drain their blood, will result in death very quickly, about 3 minutes or 4, typically. And if you eat sedated animals, you'll also eat the chemichal compounds, especially if the sedative is halogen-derivative, that'll be harmful to human body.

BTW: Snapping the neck of Chickens typically result in instant death, if you can do that for cows, however...

---

I know, but point is is that it doesn't always go well, and gawd forbids a second cut, it takes a while before it's dead when it goes wrong and that is simply unnecessary. Scew their spicelaws

edit: for you shocked by 3 a 4 minutes that is before meat is drained, not the actual death

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

I know, but point is is that it doesn't always go well, and gawd forbids a second cut, it takes a while before it's dead when it goes wrong and that is simply unnecessary. Scew their spicelaws

---

well, who say God forbids a second cut? at least for Muslims, I know that they can took another cut if the animal's blood doesn't drain much faster, or the animals doesn't die too long. I personally think most of those who think slaughtering animal is cruelty is persons who never do proper slaughter themselves. Just try it yourself, buy a Chicken, prepares a big bowl full of boiling water, and then cut it's neck near the head. Drain the blood, and then put the chicken on boiling water to scrap the feathers. If you want to eat the blood however, you can optionally put the blood- spurting neck on a bowl (both muslims and jews doesn't ate blood, Chinese did)

the funny thing is slaughtehouses dont mess up. its a sledge to the head a gunshot or a giant blade. often delivered by a machine so yeah..........

It's heartwarming to see Jews and Muslims united against a common enemy :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

It's heartwarming to see Jews and Muslims united against a common enemy :yes:

---

Defenseless sheep and cows?

Hey, I didn't comment on whether I thought that the common enemy was one they should be fighting.

In all seriousness though, this is the kind of thing which the secular government will put its foot down on in the name of a humane, tolerant society (Tolerant to animals, that is), backwards-looking people will whine and complain about it, before forgetting all about within five years time. Sacrificing a pig in the Temple, this is not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

I think making it illegal is a bad idea, as it is not a fight worth fighting. Regulating the practice with heavy fines for breaches is OK.

~:smoking:

---

It's actually not about religious practice/beliefs, not even about halal/kosher food. It is simply about requiring the animal be sedated before slaughtered. There would be no problem if people choose to have the animals slaughtered in, say, Germany and import the meat back to the Netherlands. :shrug:

Bah!

This is pure racism(of the anti-semite variant) disguised as animal rights.

Let's ban hunting while we're at it, should we? Not only are none of the animals sedated when killed, 10% of them are only wounded, and run off to bleed to death. Utter nonsense. Animals are food, nothing else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

the funny thing is slaughtehouses dont mess up.

---

Are you serious or being sarcastic?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

This is pure racism(of the anti-semite variant) disguised as animal rights.

---

Oh stow it. Respect for sentient life is a Big Deal whether religion is involved or not.

I won't go into too much detail on the religious aspect of this. Suffice it to say that I take grave issue with a lot of Jewish traditions and the conditions of kosher slaughterhouses is pretty high up there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Bah!

This is pure racism(of the anti-semite variant) disguised as animal rights.

---

Those animal welfare activist types (with whom this law originated, incidentally) are all anti Semites in disguise!!! :gah:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jabarto

Oh stow it. Respect for sentient life is a Big Deal whether religion is involved or not.

I won't go into too much detail on the religious aspect of this. Suffice it to say that I take grave issue with a lot of Jewish traditions and the conditions of kosher slaughterhouses is pretty high up there.

---

......And yet you still eat meat. I really cannot see much difference between kosher slaughter and the way we others slaughter animals. Animals are goaded with electroshocks, sedation often fails resulting in animals scolded alive, the transportation is absolute cruelty(this one is the worst by far IMO), we wound animals while hunting, etc etc.

Still, I eat meat. Since I put up with the cruelty we treat our animals with, I see no reason why kosher meat should be banned.





But then again, I don't hate the joooooooooooooooooos.

What should be mentioned is that, me being a vegetarian, I haven't eaten meat for quite some time now.

I was only wondering to what extent we're aware of whether animals suffer more (can we even apply human concept such as "suffering", which clearly implies some sort of consciousness on animals?) or less regarding on the way they are killed. I've read that animals suffer less when they are slaughtered in the kosher/halal fashion because their spinal cords are immediately cut, thus reducing the connection of the brain with the rest of the organs. Then again, I've read conflicting reports that suggest animals suffer more, because they are fully conscious of their agony until all blood has seeped away.

Can't we first get any scientific consensus on this all before talking about legal or ethical implications?

Oh forget it. It's not worth the infraction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Bah!

This is pure racism(of the anti-semite variant) disguised as animal rights.

Let's ban hunting while we're at it, should we? Not only are none of the animals sedated when killed, 10% of them are only wounded, and run off to bleed to death. Utter nonsense. Animals are food, nothing else.



Are you serious or being sarcastic?

---

90% sarcasm. Though it is true that the animal usually instantaneously dies especially in well run automated factories

Edit: though 90% of the factories aren't efficient and well run.

Edit: maybe a 100%

This is absurd, they're just animals, why can't one decide how one kills an animal (torturing is not killing, slitting a throat is not torture it's killing)? It's an impairment of one's free use of liberty without good cause, protecting the rights of farm animals at the cost of curbing those of a group of humans is in this case wrong.

Don't see how it's curbing anyone's rights, they will still be free to import it. If they want kosher and halal they can have it, just not from the Netherlands

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bopa the Magyar

This is absurd, they're just animals, why can't one decide how one kills an animal (torturing is not killing, slitting a throat is not torture it's killing)? It's an impairment of one's free use of liberty without good cause, protecting the rights of farm animals at the cost of curbing those of a group of humans is in this case wrong.

---

It is a true testament to human narrowmindedness that even in the year 2011 we hold the anachronisms of Bronze-age savages in higher regard than the respectful treatment of other beings. Then again, I'm apparently an anti-Semite because I value compassion over tradition, so what would I know?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jabarto

It is a true testament to human narrowmindedness that even in the year 2011 we hold the anachronisms of Bronze-age savages in higher regard than the respectful treatment of other beings. Then again, I'm apparently an anti-Semite because I value compassion over tradition, so what would I know?

---

AND an islamphobe. But yeah.

What about freedom of religion? I thought the continentals loved 'positive freedoms'...

Yeah you're still free to believe in whatever thing you like and segregate yourself from the rest accordingly. You just are not allowed to slaughter animals in whatever way you like. Perspective.

Why poke the hornets nest if you don't have to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Why poke the hornets nest if you don't have to?

---

For the adrenaline rush.

Modern methods of slalso why aughter are compassionate....? Modern slaughter is respectful treatment...? Now I've heard everything.

Yes, we respect our animals soooooo much, that's why we torture them by driving them across the country in a hot trailer! It's also why we scold chickens alive! Hooray! /sarcasm

And I haven't even mentioned the fur industry yet. But I'm late for skewl, so I'll keep this short: most people look down upon what they call "medieval slaughter". I'd say we should look towards the medieval period when it comes to animal welfare. That should be our benchmark. We need regulation of slaughter, but that's not because we were cruel in the middle ages, but because the industrial revolution has enabled almost unlimited cruelty. That is what we should aim to curb, not how things have been done for millennia. I believe hunting is perfectly fine. As hunting is perfectly fine, I don't see why other slaughter should be done in a more restricted way.



If people actually cared about animal welfare, they'd get rid of fur farms and unnecessarily long transportation ages before they even started to think about kosher. Unless they hate the joooooos, that is.

Do not forget that we also hate teh muslims. Slaughter animals that are to be slaughtered kosher/halal are transported the same way, moot point. We don't have long distances here by the way 2 hours max.

@Hax, with an able butcher the animal is almost instantly braindead, and I doubt they feel the cutting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Do not forget that we also hate teh muslims. Slaughter animals that are to be slaughtered kosher/halal are transported the same way, moot point. We don't have long distances here by the way 2 hours max.

@Hax, with an able butcher the animal is almost instantly braindead, and I doubt they feel the cutting.

---

The point you missed, Frags, was that there are countless issues animal rights people object to when it comes to slaughtering animals, and I have mentioned a few of them.

However, the only issue that can get banned, is kosher slaughter. I find it incredibly hard to explain that with a reason other than hatred of the jews or racism in general. If people actually cared about the animals, there are plenty of issues they would address long before they got to kosher, like transportation and fur farms.

The discussion is about the slaughter itself, not the way animals are treated before that. And unless muslims and jews breed their own lifestock for slaughter (do they?), the point is moot anyway.

Unsedated slaughter already was illegal, but till now there have been exemptions for religious rites. Personally I'm leaning towards keeping them.

Banning the practice and yet allowing imports would be hypocritical, IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

The point you missed, Frags, was that there are countless issues animal rights people object to when it comes to slaughtering animals, and I have mentioned a few of them.

However, the only issue that can get banned, is kosher slaughter. I find it incredibly hard to explain that with a reason other than hatred of the jews or racism in general. If people actually cared about the animals, there are plenty of issues they would address long before they got to kosher, like transportation and fur farms.

---

It's normal that leftists know what you are really thinking and won't accept any explanation other than racism. Rather tiring.

@Krazilec I disagree, allowing it because some like howling to the moon or whatever it is they do is hypocritical. If other countries allow it what's it to us, they are free to leave or get it from there

On the face of it allowing exemptions for religious reasons is absurd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

It's normal that leftists know what you are really thinking and won't accept any explanation other than racism. Rather tiring.

@Krazilec I disagree, allowing it because some like howling to the moon or whatever it is they do is hypocritical. If other countries allow it what's it to us, they are free to leave or get it from there

---

Please, if you have another explanation, do explain why kosher meat should be banned and fur farms(or one of the other practices animal rights activists object to) should continue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

It's normal that leftists know what you are really thinking and won't accept any explanation other than racism. Rather tiring.

---

...

Quote:

---

In all seriousness though, this is the kind of thing which the secular government will put its foot down on in the name of a humane, tolerant society (Tolerant to animals, that is), backwards-looking people will whine and complain about it, before forgetting all about within five years time. Sacrificing a pig in the Temple, this is not.

---

;_;

Actually, the Dutch parliament is cracking down on the mink fur industry as well.

Norway has already banned ritual slaughter. Going by what you've said in this thread, I take it your government is racist?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Please, if you have another explanation, do explain why kosher meat should be banned and fur farms(or one of the other practices animal rights activists object to) should continue.

---

Been said already, compassion > tradition

I seem to remember that there was another such thread, about the way animals are killed or something, quite a while back. It was in Frontroom though, if I remember correctly.

I'd made a post there, and I hadn't been able to get my point across very well. Let's see if I succeed now.

Edit: I reread what I wrote and it actually does not make sense.
To make a long story short, killing is killing. It is inhuman. It is not our right to judge whether the method in which we kill is more humane than the method someone else uses, because I'm sure that if the animal had any say in the thing, it would have probably said that it shouldn't be killed at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

Actually, the Dutch parliament is cracking down on the mink fur industry as well.

---

Good. Way overdue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

Norway has already banned ritual slaughter. Going by what you've said in this thread, I take it your government is racist?

---

The law is from 1929. I think it's safe to assume racism here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Been said already, compassion > tradition

---

That does nothing to explain your lack of compassion to the mistreatment in fur farms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

That does nothing to explain your lack of compassion to the mistreatment in fur farms.

---

I haven't made any statements about fur farms, but if you are interested I'm against it unless it are jewish minks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

I haven't made any statements about fur farms

---

....and that's kinda the point, isn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

....and that's kinda the point, isn't it?

---

well no

man, I'm gonna buy a monkey and slice it's head alive so I can eat it's brain to commemorate this.... (monkey brain soup traditionally taken while the monkey is alive, then dunked quickly into hot boiling broth and tofu, and I hold traditons, it's proud Indonesian delicacy, and it was halal*)

....

You must know that the "kosher/halal" methods of animal slaughter are much more "humane" than other methods, and you shouldn't bought fish then, because fish was frozen alive... without sedations...

*. According to muslims who also drunk beers :laugh4:

Quote:

---

You must know that the "kosher/halal" methods of animal slaughter are much more "humane" than other methods,

---

Not necessarily. There is no real scientific consensus about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Mad Arab

Not necessarily. There is no real scientific consensus about it.

---

Meh. I wonder how much lack of scientific consensus there is if one disregards religiously inspired or funded scientists who claim that an animal shot through the brain suffers as much as an animal which slowly bleeds to death.

Religion can never win from science on science's own turf. Not regarding evolution, or criticism of the laws of physics, or wild claims about the scientific value of the Bible or Koran, or 'first cause' God evidences. It is all a death end. Religion will always lose out. It merely serves as a means for the religious to cover their ears and eyes for what they would otherwise see is true.

Better, I think, is to argue that the religious slaughter tradition acknlowedges that one is dealing with a live being. That man and animal are kept in touch, look each other in the eye as it were. Whereas it is the scientific tradition which has invented industrial biology. Which has moved animals away from people, has given secular industrial society the means to cover its eyes and ears for the plight of sentient beings.
It is not a pretty sight, to kill an animal, to hang it upside down, skin it, cut out the intestines. It is far removed from the 'fun food' you see on your plate. A distance which has allowed the industry to commit all sorts of sins with both the well-being of the animal and the health of the human consumer.

I am in complete agreeance, but still, I don't think we should deny any form of science pursued by religious people out of hand.

Quote:

---

Better, I think, is to argue that the religious slaughter tradition acknlowedges that one is dealing with a live being. That man and animal are kept in touch, look each other in the eye as it were. Whereas it is the scientific tradition which has invented industrial biology. Which has moved animals away from people, has given secular industrial society the means to cover its eyes and ears for the plight of sentient beings.
It is not a pretty sight, to kill an animal, to hang it upside down, skin it, cut out the intestines. It is far removed from the 'fun food' you see on your plate. A distance which has allowed the industry to commit all sorts of sins with both the well-being of the animal and the health of the human consumer.

---

Exactly this. Couldn't have worded it better myself. In which you have also outlined the reason why I've abstained from eating meat for six years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bopa the Magyar

This is absurd, they're just animals, . . .

---

That is no excuse to be cruel to them. Indeed we often measure our humanity by how we treat animals.

It's not such a bad standard to apply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

man, I'm gonna buy a monkey and slice it's head alive so I can eat it's brain to commemorate this....

---

mmmm.... delicious..... :clown:
I want some!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

mmmm.... delicious..... :clown:
I want some!

---

100% Animal Cruelty :wink:
only in South East Asia :thumbsup:

(no, I'm not bought any monkey yet, actually I ate steamed potato for breakfast today)

well, somebody else's delicacy could be cruelty for some... it's unfortunate indeed... but if we use the same judgements, Indians could protest Europeans that ate cows, because they are sacred and shouldn't be eaten.

As long as the sale of halal/kosher meat is not banned, I don't see what the problem is. If the regulations state that halal/kosher meat is treated in a way that violates the rules which state that the duty of the government is to make sure food is safe and humanely prepared, then the regulations should stand.

If their way of life is not threatened, then there is no violation of religion here in my book. If all the halal/kosher meat simply switches from "Made in the Netherlands" to "Made in x country." What is the problem?

EDIT: To make my point more clear, what I saying is: if they can still buy it, then I don't see what the problem is.

The bigest problem with this is that it glorifies our industrial agriculture, ACIN, as people start believing the lie that our treatment of animals is somehow "humane".

Which is nonsense. We optimize for profit, not animal welfare.

I'm okay with that, however, which is why I also have no problem with kosher.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

The bigest problem with this is that it glorifies our industrial agriculture, ACIN, as people start believing the lie that our treatment of animals is somehow "humane".

Which is nonsense. We optimize for profit, not animal welfare.

I'm okay with that, however, which is why I also have no problem with kosher.

---

There is no humane way of killing something. There are more humane ways of killing than others though. Obviously we can agree there is a difference between smashing the head with a rock repeatedly until it dies and giving it a quick electric zap to the head.

Unless you're the one killing the animal, and butchering the meat I hardly see a reason to complain. The bigger issues are the industrial sized ranches churning out pathetic quality meat by animals that are treated horribly in their time of living. Happy cows are tasty cows.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

There is no humane way of killing something. There are more humane ways of killing than others though. Obviously we can agree there is a difference between smashing the head with a rock repeatedly until it dies and giving it a quick electric zap to the head.

---

What's the difference between cutting it and letting it bleed to death(the kosher way) and scolding it alive(our way)?

Bah two pages of an absolute rubbish "Oh no halal/kosher meat could be banned" boo hoo if they were all hungry enough they wouldnt give a toss where the meat came from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

That is no excuse to be cruel to them. Indeed we often measure our humanity by how we treat animals.

It's not such a bad standard to apply.

---

...
We breed them to be slaughtered and eaten, slitting their throats is hardly crueler than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

What's the difference between cutting it and letting it bleed to death(the kosher way) and scolding it alive(our way)?

---

False dichotomy. It is not given that "our way" is scolding it alive. Do you somehow know that every slaughterhouse in Europe and North America scolds them alive?

The difference is in intent and in the pain factor. If you deny that a bullet to the head is quicker and less painful then having your head bashed in with a rock, then you have lost at living in reality.

An electrical zap that knocks the animal unconscious and disrupts breathing is quick, painless and they don't suffer as much as slicing their throats open as they hang from a cable wide awake.

It is also less malicious in intent. Killing animals to eat is not an "inhumane" action. It is nature and does not subscribe or allow itself to be applied with human concepts of humane or inhumane. Cats are not "inhumane" creatures for capturing and killing mice to eat. The act of killing the animal itself is always inhumane though and should be recognized as regrettable because we have the ability to actually think about our actions. There is a lot of nuance here that you and many others in this thread entirely skip over in order to make your general point.

We are not monsters because we eat other animals, but we can be monsters due to how we go about it. Bleeding a pig out while it hangs upside down is backwards and is obviously more pain and suffering for the animal then a usual factory farm that kills them in a quicker, more efficient pattern.

This detracts from the point I made in the first place though, which is that if this kosher way is less sanitary or healthy then normal western preparation, then the ban is fine as long as it doesn't ban the product outright.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

The bigest problem with this is that it glorifies our industrial agriculture, ACIN, as people start believing the lie that our treatment of animals is somehow "humane".

Which is nonsense. We optimize for profit, not animal welfare.

I'm okay with that, however, which is why I also have no problem with kosher.

---

Nobody has doubts about the industry, although it isn't as bad as some think, rules are pretty strict (here at least). Like described in 'Fast Food Nation', well it doesn't go like that over here. The scale is morbid of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

well, somebody else's delicacy could be cruelty for some... it's unfortunate indeed... but if we use the same judgements, Indians could protest Europeans that ate cows, because they are sacred and shouldn't be eaten.

---

No, now you are mixing things up. There are concerns about the welfare about animals because we believe that it causes them suffering if they are treated badly. The pain that a cow feel is irrelevant to whether some people consider the animal holy or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bopa the Magyar

...
We breed them to be slaughtered and eaten, slitting their throats is hardly crueler than that.

---

It would only be cruel if they could understand the plot and feel uneasy about it, something which I doubt.. Either way, cruelty does not excuse more cruelty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

False dichotomy. It is not given that "our way" is scolding it alive. Do you somehow know that every slaughterhouse in Europe and North America scolds them alive?

---

Yes, every slaughterhouse that sedates chickens with electroshocks ends up scolding quite a few of them alive. The alternative is of course to choke them with CO2, sounds like fun.

Not that I care, I bought enough chicken products yesterday to last till the end of the month. It's food, not humans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

Either way, cruelty does not excuse more cruelty.

---

True.

But perhaps we should take care of the worst cruelty first, then worry about the less cruel stuff afterwards? Remove the log before the splinter, as some might say....




As long as fur farms are still around, animal welfare is a joke. Same goes for the outrageous long distances animals are transported in Europe.

Earlier this month I visited my parents and we had a discussion about this subject. Back then, I argued pretty much the same thing as HoreTore: there are numerous other issues about the meat industry that should be adressed, before taking on a relatively minor one like this - especially if the latter will also alienate some religious groups.

But now that HoreTore is saying it, I don't know what to think...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

Earlier this month I visited my parents and we had a discussion about this subject. Back then, I argued pretty much the same thing as HoreTore: there are numerous other issues about the meat industry that should be adressed, before taking on a relatively minor one like this - especially if the latter will also alienate some religious groups.

But now that HoreTore is saying it, I don't know what to think...

---

Don't worry: I frequently agree with Frags, and that one time hell froze over, me and Furunculus was also in perfect agreement! ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Nobody has doubts about the industry, although it isn't as bad as some think, rules are pretty strict (here at least). Like described in 'Fast Food Nation', well it doesn't go like that over here. The scale is morbid of course.

---

Perhaps in the Neds... it's an absolute disgrace for the USA and it's mostly because people are hopelessly addicted to processed meat, say the words "Cut back a bit if you can't afford good quality" doesn't ring with many people here... so bad quality has absorbed the market, and nobody cares because of government subsidies that have choked the profitability out of sustainable and dare-I-say humane ranching/farming methods.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Yes, every slaughterhouse that sedates chickens with electroshocks ends up scolding quite a few of them alive. The alternative is of course to choke them with CO2, sounds like fun.

Not that I care, I bought enough chicken products yesterday to last till the end of the month. It's food, not humans.

---

My point still stands though. If a few chickens are still alive it is because of a mechanical or design problem, not an issue stemming from malicious intent.

It's like criticizing the justice system because a few guilty people got away and few innocent got locked up. There won't be any justice system that won't have that happen just as there won't be an automated slaughterhouse that will perfectly sedate every chicken.

So again the difference is, we attempt at making death as peaceful as possible for the animals out of respect while the other way has religious words whispered into the frighten pigs ear right before it feels its throat slit. The emphasis on the latter is not on the animal but the religious undertones while the focus on the western style is all about the animal. This is the crux of the matter here and I don't see what you are trying to say. Are all methods equal to you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Samurai Waki

Perhaps in the Neds... it's an absolute disgrace for the USA and it's mostly because people are hopelessly addicted to processed meat, say the words "Cut back a bit if you can't afford good quality" doesn't ring with many people here... so bad quality has absorbed the market, and nobody cares because of government subsidies that have choked the profitability out of sustainable and dare-I-say humane ranching/farming methods.

---

People are not addicted to processed meat, they are addicted to cheap meat. Big difference. I once had a fresh, natural ranched steak and my taste buds were never happier, but I still enjoy Wendy's when I am hungry just because I am happy to get so much food for so little.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

But perhaps we should take care of the worst cruelty first, then worry about the less cruel stuff afterwards? Remove the log before the splinter, as some might say....

As long as fur farms are still around, animal welfare is a joke. Same goes for the outrageous long distances animals are transported in Europe.

---

I think the animals that are forced to bleed to death would like to differ. There are surely graver things going on, but one can focus on one topic at a time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

People are not addicted to processed meat, they are addicted to cheap meat. Big difference. I once had a fresh, natural ranched steak and my taste buds were never happier, but I still enjoy Wendy's when I am hungry just because I am happy to get so much food for so little.

---

OT we have the best thing evar here, a culinary take-away. Yesterday I had one with belgian-mayonnaise, truffle flakes and parmasan cheese & roasted lemon skin. Tasty indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

I think the animals that are forced to bleed to death would like to differ. There are surely graver things going on, but one can focus on one topic at a time.

---

I think the animals biting themselves to death due to insane stress levels on fur farms would like to differ.

As would the animals who die a slow, painful death while transported to slaughter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

My point still stands though. If a few chickens are still alive it is because of a mechanical or design problem, not an issue stemming from malicious intent.

It's like criticizing the justice system because a few guilty people got away and few innocent got locked up. There won't be any justice system that won't have that happen just as there won't be an automated slaughterhouse that will perfectly sedate every chicken.

So again the difference is, we attempt at making death as peaceful as possible for the animals out of respect while the other way has religious words whispered into the frighten pigs ear right before it feels its throat slit. The emphasis on the latter is not on the animal but the religious undertones while the focus on the western style is all about the animal. This is the crux of the matter here and I don't see what you are trying to say. Are all methods equal to you?

---

Define "malicious intent".

The people doing it are fully aware that what they're doing results in chickens being fried alive. It's not a freak occurrence, it's the result of their actions. And they don't give a crap about that and proceed with business as usual.

If kosher slaughter is "malicious intent", how is this not the same?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Define "malicious intent".

The people doing it are fully aware that what they're doing results in chickens being fried alive. It's not a freak occurrence, it's the result of their actions. And they don't give a crap about that and proceed with business as usual.

If kosher slaughter is "malicious intent", how is this not the same?

---

They aren't fried alive they get hauled through an electrified water pool to knock them out. Have you actually seen a slaughterhouse from the inside.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Define "malicious intent".

The people doing it are fully aware that what they're doing results in chickens being fried alive. It's not a freak occurrence, it's the result of their actions. And they don't give a crap about that and proceed with business as usual.

If kosher slaughter is "malicious intent", how is this not the same?

---

Malicious intent the way I am using it means that the culture/society in which the food is being prepared has blatant disregard for any respect towards the animals they will be eating because they have their own traditions that they feel trump any sort of acquiescence to animals they are slaughtering. Does that really apply to western factories? No, not really unless you stretch the truth a lot.

It is a freak occurrence when it only happens to 1 out of every 100 or 1000 chickens. You just said it happens to quite a few of them. Unless I am misunderstanding the term quite a few doesn't mean majority or even close to it. What you are describing isn't what the method is supposed to be. The method is supposed to be to sedate them so they don't feel pain when they are killed. That shows that the culture respects the animal even when it is implemented badly. Purposely slicing it when it is still awake and not caring just because it is religious tradition and "god wants it that way" is malicious to the animal because they are purposely refusing to respect the animal.

Also, workers at the factory who don't care != society. The religious communities want to adhere to kosher rules and don't care about the animal or how much it feels pain. Western factories have government mandated and culturally acceptable ways of attempting to lessen or negate the pain for the animal. Just because the process might actually suck and actually does hurt a lot of the animals and just because the workers themselves might not care because they are desensitized from working there doesn't mean that suddenly both groups are on equal footing. One group is taking measures, the other group isn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

They aren't fried alive they get hauled through an electrified water pool to knock them out. Have you actually seen a slaughterhouse from the inside.

---

Yes, and that sedation works when the chicken is of normal height and doesn't wiggle. If it's small or wiggles, they often miss it, and they also miss the blade from time to time. No miss on the scolding though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Yes, and that sedation works when the chicken is of normal height and doesn't wiggle. If it's small or wiggles, they often miss it, and they also miss the blade from time to time. No miss on the scolding though.

---

They are completely underwater no matter their size, feathers come of better when they are wet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I think the animals biting themselves to death due to insane stress levels on fur farms would like to differ.

As would the animals who die a slow, painful death while transported to slaughter.

---

You keep bringing up fur farms when it has little or no relevance. Neither does transportation, which is required even if the meat is to be halal or kosher.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I think the animals biting themselves to death due to insane stress levels on fur farms would like to differ.

As would the animals who die a slow, painful death while transported to slaughter.

---

That is still not to say that the lesser sufferings should not be stopped.. They do not have to come at the expense of each other.

As for the 'terrible' transportation, I wonder if you have som links to come up with - it rings no bells here.

Hore - what you ought to do, is to show that despite the existence of all sorts of animal abuse, ritual slaughter is singled out.

This would then show that this is about Dutch anti-Islamic sentiment, instead of about animal rights concerns. Kosher simply being thron into the mix to avoid allegations of racism, and because the Jewish and Islamic traditions happen to be not dissimilar in this area.

Fur farms, animal transports, poor conditions of raising livestock - either these are all tackled, or this is about Islam.



Well bless the internets!:

Dutch raise animal rights to new level

It has been a busy few weeks for Marianne Thieme. Ten days ago, she made history as one of two animal-rights candidates to win election to the Dutch parliament.
They are the first animal-rights MPs anywhere in the world.

This 'Animal Rights Party' is the origin of the possible ban on ritual slaughter:

Amsterdam - A leading Dutch animal rights politician Thursday demanded that an end to be put to ritual slaughters of animals in The Netherlands, while cautioning that this stance is not meant as criticism of the Muslim and Jewish faiths.
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/ne...ual_slaughters

The populist right too is about animal rights. Free from the ancient alliances with agricultural interests and local rural entanglements of the old right, the Fragony's of this world can finally impose a long-standing electoral majority in favour of more animal rights:

If it sounds like an idea inspired by the Animal Planet show "Animal Cops," it's because it was. There will soon be 500 police officers on the streets of Holland protecting the welfare of the country's animals. The proposal originated with a uniquely powerful animal rights political party -- and brought to fruition by Geert Wilders' anti-Islam Party for Freedom.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...747345,00.html

Common cause between new political parties then, who force the entire political structure towards their goals. It shows what society can do in a short time when freed of the constraints of old polical entanglements in general, and old multicultural reflexes in this particular case.