Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

To people who dislike halal slaughter.

Announcements Posted on
    • 13 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    ... what :lolwut:
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jeester)
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...4069357427976#

    Yeah right...
    ****ing retard.
    Lol, that's coming from someone who works at McDonald's, so I don't really take any offence from that :rolleyes:
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I'd prefer to eat non-halal meat rather than halal meat because most of the credible research I've seen strongly suggests that the halal method causes more pain to the animal than the non-halal method. For similar reason I'd prefer chose eggs from free-range hens over eggs from caged hens. I'd prefer that the animals providing what I eat were treated as humanely as possible.

    Secondly I'm not religious and don't particularly see the need to have my food blessed by religious people who follow a religion I don't believe in.
    • Thread Starter
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by najinaji)
    While I find killing an animal for the sake of one's pleasure immoral in the first place, I agree that if one has to do so, it should be in the most humane way possible. From what I've heard, halal slaughter is pretty painful for the animal.

    But yes, at the end of the day, eat Quorn, guys.
    Quorn has egg in it!
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by When you see it...)
    Quorn has egg in it!
    ...And?
    • Thread Starter
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MehMachine)
    Just imagine a blade, cold and thin running across the skin of your neck. Stinging and burning as it slides deeper into your tissue until you feel a warmth and pressure release as blood spurts everywhere and the major vessels and nerves are severed in your neck... :eek:
    Just imagine being killed in the first place. Pretty much the same isn't it?
    • Thread Starter
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by najinaji)
    ...And?
    If you are okay with eating egg, then fine. I just thought you would like to know.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by When you see it...)
    If you are okay with eating egg, then fine. I just thought you would like to know.
    Vegetarian =/= Vegan

    Vegetarians can eat egg, milk, cheese etc. because the animal doesn't die in the process. Therefore, vegetarians can get all the nutrients they need and can stay healthy.

    Vegans only eat vegetation. It is very hard to live a vegan lifestyle, and it will certainly involve excessive dependence on supplements.
    • Thread Starter
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaintSoldier)
    Vegetarian =/= Vegan

    Vegetarians can eat egg, milk, cheese etc. because the animal doesn't die in the process. Therefore, vegetarians can get all the nutrients they need and can stay healthy.

    Vegans only eat vegetation. It is very hard to live a vegan lifestyle, and it will certainly involve excessive dependence on supplements.
    lol I kow, I'm a vegan myself. How do you think the nutrients ends up in dairy products. It's because the animals eat plants, therefore plants contain enough nutrients. There is an argument that humans are less well adapted to digesting plant material than, for example, cows, but it is still far more efficient in terms of energy/biomass for us to eat only plants and we could definitely get enough nutrients from this method even if we had to eat more plant material (which would involve less loss of energy/biomass than eating the normal amount of animal material due to one less stage in the food chain.)
    That went off topic a bit, but that is why I'm vegan. To address your comment about supplements, I take calcium and vitamin D but that is it. Do you think I should take others? I'm unhealthy as **** to begin with.
    • 20 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by When you see it...)
    lol I kow, I'm a vegan myself. How do you think the nutrients ends up in dairy products. It's because the animals eat plants, therefore plants contain enough nutrients. There is an argument that humans are less well adapted to digesting plant material than, for example, cows, but it is still far more efficient in terms of energy/biomass for us to eat only plants and we could definitely get enough nutrients from this method even if we had to eat more plant material (which would involve less loss of energy/biomass than eating the normal amount of animal material due to one less stage in the food chain.)
    That went off topic a bit, but that is why I'm vegan. To address your comment about supplements, I take calcium and vitamin D but that is it. Do you think I should take others? I'm unhealthy as **** to begin with.
    You probably need to some sort of protein.
    • 20 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by najinaji)
    while i find killing an animal for the sake of one's pleasure immoral in the first place, i agree that if one has to do so, it should be in the most humane way possible. From what i've heard, halal slaughter is pretty painful for the animal.

    But yes, at the end of the day, eat quorn, guys.
    PRSOM

    Love quorn!!!!
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I don't anyone can reasonably defend Halal slaughter. I can't think of a valid argument as to why an animal should die in pain just because of what it says in an ancient book.

    Religion needs to move into the 20th century and the UK needs stricter laws on the treatment of animals.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iqbal007)
    1. There is also numerous companies who gave evidence who are bias:
    Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
    Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
    Vegetarians International Voice for Animals
    Animal Health Trust
    Animal Welfare Science, Ethics and Law Veterinary Association
    Food Standards Agency
    None of those listed are "companies", their interests are not governed by profit or religion (unlike religious slaughterhouses) but animal welfare.

    Halal Food Authority

    No evidence was given by a Halal abattoir which doesn't use any stunning.
    Slaughter houses which do not pre-stun are at liberty to provide their own evidence or conduct their own scientific studies, however they didn't. Similarly The Halal Food Authority did not try to defend slaughter without stunning (or at least not very well).

    Frankly we're talking about an indefensible position not some sort of crazy animal-welfare-mafia-conspiracy-theory-cover-up.

    2. I said it can be, it's true, nor is it a lie......the suffering stronger among the large animals which take time to be stunned properly.
    Proper stunning takes a fraction of a second regardless of size.

    3. Halal slaughter houses have to treat animals very humanely otherwise they fail to be halal, it's a condition to looking after animals and slaughtering them in Islam.
    The fact is that not all farms are free-range, there still exists many caged farms.....hence the meat you recieve especially in ones where you don't know where your meat has come from, is at odds with this stunning and killing humane concept.
    Ignorant gross generalisations of the farming and slaughter industry. It is no different to someone claiming that all Muslims are terrorists, all working class people are on benefits or all teenagers are antisocial thugs.

    (Original post by Iqbal007)
    You can't trust RSPCA as they already have a biasness of things even before they started the study, hence you can't trust it. You can't seriously trust someone who carries out a study when they've already spoken about how they already see things.

    'May', it's a possibility, as with the RSPCA study which can also be flawed.
    The RSPCA didn't have anything to do with the study.

    You clearly have little or no experience of the farming industry, conventional abattoirs, meat science or the science of stunning.

    (Original post by Lawyer92)
    I think that you'll find that many things that have been proven scientifically, are already stated in religious texts.
    Unfortunately there is little or no evidence that this is the case.

    While some aspects of science it mentions are true many were well established before the Koran was written. Elsewhere there are fundamental errors or cryptic passages have been interpreted by modern Islamic scholars to support science. One or two true scientific findings does not magically transform the Koran into a leading resource on all aspects of life and science.

    (Original post by Lawyer92)
    Science is flawed to a certain extent. That's why I do not understand why people put their trust in it. There are loads of controversy surrounding certain topics, for example. Nearly every thing that has been claimed by scientists, has sparked debate. Religion has been used to prove certain theories in science. That's why I put my trust in it
    Science is the study of the world around us based on empirical evidence. While our conclusions based on the evidence may sometimes be inaccurate science itself is not "flawed" nor can it lie. Another difference between it and religon is that it is progressive, we are always working to find out more about the world or better understand how/why things happen rather than blind faith.
    • Thread Starter
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Id and Ego seek)
    Peter Singer hates you,

    and so do I.
    Just skimmed over his wikipedia article and tbh he seems like a complete dickhead. A typical out-of-touch academic philosopher who thinks he knows better than everyone else.
    • Thread Starter
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by detinus)
    I don't anyone can reasonably defend Halal slaughter. I can't think of a valid argument as to why an animal should die in pain just because of what it says in an ancient book.

    Religion needs to move into the 20th century and the UK needs stricter laws on the treatment of animals.
    I can't think of any valid argument as to why animals should be killed in the first place, hence I don't see why people are okay with normal slaughter but not halal slaughter. Nobody who holds this view has given me a reasonable justification yet.
    • 49 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ch0c0h01ic)
    None of those listed are "companies", their interests are not governed by profit or religion (unlike religious slaughterhouses) but animal welfare.



    Slaughter houses which do not pre-stun are at liberty to provide their own evidence or conduct their own scientific studies, however they didn't. Similarly The Halal Food Authority did not try to defend slaughter without stunning (or at least not very well).

    Frankly we're talking about an indefensible position not some sort of crazy animal-welfare-mafia-conspiracy-theory-cover-up.



    Proper stunning takes a fraction of a second regardless of size.



    Ignorant gross generalisations of the farming and slaughter industry. It is no different to someone claiming that all Muslims are terrorists, all working class people are on benefits or all teenagers are antisocial thugs.



    The RSPCA didn't have anything to do with the study.

    You clearly have little or no experience of the farming industry, conventional abattoirs, meat science or the science of stunning.



    Unfortunately there is little or no evidence that this is the case.
    If their agenda is "animal welfare" they are likely to be bias in favour of this welfare and they advocate stunning.

    They didn't hence why the study is flawed because it doesn't provide both sides of the argument and is skewed to one side.

    The halal food authority, is very dodgy, hence why I brought them up, the majority of Muslims in the UK feel their likes are not of Islamic rules and don't consider them halal.

    I would say otherwise because of the stunning process takes far longer to take affect on a larger mass.

    I did say "The fact is that not all farms are free-range, there still exists many caged farms" I didn't make a generalisations, i made clear that cage farms exists widely in the UK farm industry. Your generalisation is wrong, because I didn't make such, I stated that their are some humane farms, but not all are.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iqbal007)
    I would say otherwise because of the stunning process takes far longer to take affect on a larger mass.
    Nonsense - the process of achieving a good stun in a cow takes milliseconds.

    You obviously haven't ever been in the stunning box of an abattoir or studied meat science.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ch0c0h01ic)
    Nonsense - the process of achieving a good stun in a cow takes milliseconds.

    You obviously haven't ever been in the stunning box of an abattoir or studied meat science.
    This is the following method used

    1. Animal should be slaughtered with sharp object (knife)

    The animal has to be slaughtered with a sharp object (knife) and in a fast way so that the pain of slaughter is minimised.

    2. Cut wind pipe, throat and vessels of neck

    Zabiha is an Arabic word which means ‘slaughtered’. The ‘slaughtering’ is to be done by cutting the throat, windpipe and the blood vessels in the neck causing the animal’s death without cutting the spinal cord.

    3. Blood should be drained

    The blood has to be drained completely before the head is removed. The purpose is to drain out most of the blood which would serve as a good culture medium for micro organisms. The spinal cord must not be cut because the nerve fibres to the heart could be damaged during the process causing cardiac arrest, stagnating the blood in the blood vessels.

    4. Blood is a good medium for germs and bacteria

    Blood is a good media of germs, bacteria, toxins, etc. Therefore the Muslim way of slaughtering is more hygienic as most of the blood containing germs, bacteria, toxins, etc. that are the cause of several diseases are eliminated.

    5. Meat remains fresh for a longer time

    Meat slaughtered by Islamic way remains fresh for a longer time due to deficiency of blood in the meat as compared to other methods of slaughtering.

    6. Animal does not feel pain

    The swift cutting of vessels of the neck disconnects the flow of blood to the nerve of the brain responsible for pain. Thus the animal does not feel pain. While dying, the animal struggles, writhers, shakes and kicks, not due to pain, but due to the contraction and relaxation of the muscles defecient in blood and due to the flow of blood out of the body.

    Islamic slaughter is the only method that does not put the animal through any pain whatsoever. Unlike the method used by many, 'stunning'. Get your facts right.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by When you see it...)
    Death = infinite loss.
    Pain = finite loss.
    Therefore:
    Death + pain = infinite loss + finite loss.
    Which is the same as:
    Death + pain = infinite loss.
    Therefore:
    Death = Death + pain.
    Therefore:
    Normal slaughter = Halal slaughter.


    Both barbaric and unnecessary IMO, but if you disagree you can't make exceptions and say that one is bad and the other is okay.

    BTW I'm not trying to use maths notation to try to make my argument seem more valid, this is just a neat way of setting it out.

    So what is your justification for eating meat but disliking halal meat?

    EDIT:
    Also, I'm not 100% sure that pain is involved, I just see this argument occasionally that it brings unnecessary pain to the animal.

    difference lies in - if someone shoots you for food.
    Or someone physically restrains you, slits your throats and holds you down till you bleed to death thrashing around in panic whilst they continue reciting some ancient paragraphs from a made up book, becuase they feel like it.Then shoots you.
    • 9 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by When you see it...)
    Just skimmed over his wikipedia article and tbh he seems like a complete dickhead. A typical out-of-touch academic philosopher who thinks he knows better than everyone else.
    In a nut shell, yes, but I like his work on animal ethics and it was relevant here (his work on human bioethics is appalling) 3:

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: May 8, 2012
New on TSR

GCSE English mock revision

Revise together & check out past papers

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.