I hope someday people realize animals aren't supposed to be consumed in the first place and that any killing is inhumane.
If animals weren't worried about being consumed we wouldn't have developed defense mechanisms like hooves horns or science. One of the risks of life is that you become food, even humans run this risk with a walk through the woods or a swim in the ocean. But inhumane implies how one would treat a human. If I was forced to choose between saving a human child or a baby rat, that is a pretty simple decision isn't it? We hold our species to a higher value because to do otherwise would be evolutionary suicide. If a leopard decided the life of an antelope was equal to the life of another leopard, then the leopard's cubs would starve.
if you can't take care of yourself... why would you even bother trying to take care of someone else.......... if you are a human and your first piority is to save animal rather then saving the human... then we got a problem somwere....
What are you talking about? When did I ever say I can't take care of myself or that my first priority is to save an animal rather than save a human? I would recommend you take English and some reading comprehension classes. It might help, or maybe not.
When I saw romeo2010 post, I went through Rebecca's postings here a few times and cant find how did romeo2010 derived at his conclusion.
He has constantly drawn false conclusions from what he has read and he has constantly made stuff up. It's almost like he is incapable of reading something and understanding what it means. Sweetsara, EEG activity does not equate pain. If the animal is unconscious how can it possibly feel pain? Do you know what unconscious means? if not, Please, Look it up before posting any more. it is impossible for the slaughter of a conscious animal to be as humane as the slaughter of an unconscious one.
Tell me something. Do any of you guys who are decrying Halal, Kosher or Western methods v's one or the other actually have any first-hand or expert knowledge in the subject or is it all second-hand from some website or other?
University of Miami's group of students have conducted research regarding this. You guys should contact them.
How many people really have "first hand" knowledge of that? Do you have to have "first hand" knowledge of something to have an opinion about it? To take an extreme example, would someone need to have "first hand" knowledge of genocide to make the statement it is wrong?
I'm not saying everyone has to have first hand knowledge of everything they comment on. What I'm asking is whether those who are saying one method is better or worse than another actually have any first-hand or expert knowledge on the subject that allows them to make such statements.
Do you have "first hand" or "expert" knowledge on every thread you have have made a comment in? This is not a personal attack by any means, so I hope you don't take it that way.
Well why are you aiming at me then? My question is a fair one in the context of this discussion. People are saying one method should be banned / made illegal but not another so I'm asking if anyone actually has any first-hand or expert knowledge on the differing methods that allows them to pass such sweeping statements? Some say the present Western method is fine but Halal and/or Kosher should be outlawed, and vice-versa. So my question is to try to determine why they say that one method is okay but the other is not?
Sorry if the question seemed aimed at you, it wasn't aimed you personally but expecting someone to have "first hand" or "expert" knowledge of a subject is a bit much. Anyways, back to the discussion at hand. Have at it.
I have never seen the animal killed, but I have ate kosher, halal and regular old western style butchered meats. I also think the whole discussion is odd. Is it a greater sin to torture than to kill? Because ultimately, the animal ends up dead. I see the enemies of kosher and halal as logically being vegetarians. People who have significant respect for animal life, people who do not believe animals should be harmed (pain -=or=- death).
guerilla i have no problem with killing animals for food, Humans are omnivores, We require both meat and vegetation for a balanced diet, Our teeth and gut are evidence of this and it would be impossible for us to produce enough vegetables to feed a whole planet of vegetarians. The point is, When these animals are killed for food we have to ensure that we minimise the suffering caused to the animal to the best of our ability. It is a fact, An undeniable fact, that rendering an animal unconscious before slaughtering it causes less physical suffering than slaughtering it and leaving it to bleed to death, While conscious, Over the course of 2 minutes.
The problem from the perspective of Halal and Kosher with regard to stunning prior to slaughter is two-fold: injury to the animal prior to slaughter (against religious beliefs and practices) and the possibility of stopping the heart thereby preventing complete exsanguination. Stunning prior to slaughter will often result in ventricular fibrilation and therefore incomplete bleed-out.
So you logically regard them as our property, because we are higher in the food chain? Why? I'm not being silly either. Why? Is it a moral code? That was my point about war. It's ok to bomb other humans, but we're going to get hung up on animal suffering. What we have IMO is a fundamental lack of respect for life. That transcends killing sheep or cows for meat. And I've read what pizza wrote about no suffering, and mcfox makes an excellent point about bleedout. Not to attack you specifically stOx, becaause I know exactly where you are coming from, but this sort of namby pamby nonsense is going to result in preventing Sikhs from building gurdwaras because they are not "environmentally sound", which in the future could mean, "not aesthetically pleasing" if we become any more metrosexual as a race. The level of political correctness is stifling. And ridiculous. I don't regard animal life as human life. I don't think torturing an animal is a nice or good thing to do. But it doesn't seem that the Jews or Muslims are torturing to create pain or entertainment. It's part of a specific ritual to prepare the meat in a specific manner. From where I sit, torture doesn't even enter the equation,and in that regard, it's as morally sound as accidentally bombing a school full of kids. If we don't charge our leaders with war crimes every time a civilian or non-combatant gets killed, then by what moral authority do we value the suffering of animals higher than that of humans?
It's not about me thinking they are our property or not. It's about minimising the suffering caused to a sentient, conscious animal. They suffer, They experience pain. While i have no hangup with regard to killing them we have a duty to minimise the suffering and pain they experience as a part of this process. And to needlessly increase the suffering and pain caused to these animals for nothing more than a religious belief and tradition is unacceptable in the 21st century.