Sharp rise in halal abattoirs slaughtering animals without stunning them first.
Scroll to see replies
Original post by h3isenberg
Ok. Prove they have souls.
Remember: extraordinary claims needs extraordinary evidence.
Remember: extraordinary claims needs extraordinary evidence.
You will have your answer after you die.
Original post by AntisthenesDogger
I find it a fair bit more insane how people get so worked up about an animal dying a few seconds slower yet couldn't give a crap about how the animals are raised.
Original post by Raymat
Its not nonsense, death and onwards is a whole different realm that science will never be able to investigate.
Of course science won't be able to investigate it, science can't investigate something that there is literally not a single shred of evidence for.
Pay for the slaughtering and exploitation of animals for your own convenience, complain about a wee thing on the end because it's a convenient target 
Original post by h3isenberg
Lol
Prove animals have souls
Prove animals have souls
What is shocking is that this is supposed to be a student forum.
Original post by rockrunride
Pay for the slaughtering and exploitation of animals for your own convenience, complain about a wee thing on the end because it's a convenient target
But...But Islam!
Original post by redferry
I find it a fair bit more insane how people get so worked up about an animal dying a few seconds slower yet couldn't give a crap about how the animals are raised.
The issue is that society has (much to my dismay) decided that it wants to eat meat, we've recognised that this results in suffering to the animals so we're come up with a set of rules in order to reduce the needless suffering of said animals. We've now thrown these rules in the bin because certain groups of people want to emulate how things were done in 7th century Arabia. Times have moved on, we have the ability to reduce suffering and the efforts of people to introduce even more suffering into an industry already rife with suffering must be opposed.
Original post by DaveSmith99
The issue is that society has (much to my dismay) decided that it wants to eat meat, we've recognised that this results in suffering to the animals so we're come up with a set of rules in order to reduce the needless suffering of said animals. We've now thrown these rules in the bin because certain groups of people want to emulate how things were done in 7th century Arabia. Times have moved on, we have the ability to reduce suffering and the efforts of people to introduce even more suffering into an industry already rife with suffering must be opposed.
Oh come on the vast majority of people whinging about halal are seriously unethical in their food choices, don't even pretend otherwise.
You want to see a painful death? Go spend some time in nature. You'll quickly realise having your throat slit is a pretty decent way to go compared to how nature intended...
You know what I never hear people complaining about? Fish. You know how fish die? They are left to suffocate slowly on the deck of a boat. If you want your animal rights cause that's probably one of the first to be adressing.
(edited 9 years ago)
There are a lot of misconceptions about halal meat.
The first of which is that killing a animal with the halal method is "inhumane" and "painful" for the animal. This is simply not true, and science will support my point.
The Non-Halal method involves electrocuting the animal until it is unconscious. this method of dispatch would appear to be much more peaceful for the onlooker. However, the EEG readings indicated severe pain immediately after stunning. Whereas in the first example, the animal seizes to feel pain due to the brain starvation of blood and oxygen – a brain death, to put it in laymen’s terms – the second example first causes a stoppage of the heart whilst the animal still feels pain. However, there are no unsightly convulsions, which not only means that there is more blood retention in the meat, but also that this method lends itself much more conveniently to the efficiency demands of modern mass slaughter procedures. It is so much easier to dispatch an animal on the conveyor belt, if it does not move.
The Halal is best. It involves cutting the throat and the vessels of the neck, also the windpipe. But the spinal cord is not damaged and there is a good reason for this. if the spinal cord is cut the animal will suffer from cardiac arrest, causing its heart to stop. the blood will stagnate in the animals body, science tells us that blood is a very good media for germs and bacteria, Which is why it is vital that the spinal cord is not cut so that the hear continues to pump blood out of the body. If there is no blood in the animals body chances of contamination are reduced majorly. Science also backs up the point that the Halal method inflicts minuscule pain to the animal compared with the non-Halal method. there was not change in the EEG graph for the first three seconds after the incision was made, indicating that the animal did not feel any pain from the cut itself. This is not surprising. Often, if we cut ourselves with a sharp implement, we do not notice until some time later. The following three seconds were characterised by a condition of deep sleep-like unconsciousness brought about by the draining of large quantities of blood from the body.
And this is why the halal method is more hygienic for us while also being less painful for the animal.
If you have any questions please ask.
The first of which is that killing a animal with the halal method is "inhumane" and "painful" for the animal. This is simply not true, and science will support my point.
The Non-Halal method involves electrocuting the animal until it is unconscious. this method of dispatch would appear to be much more peaceful for the onlooker. However, the EEG readings indicated severe pain immediately after stunning. Whereas in the first example, the animal seizes to feel pain due to the brain starvation of blood and oxygen – a brain death, to put it in laymen’s terms – the second example first causes a stoppage of the heart whilst the animal still feels pain. However, there are no unsightly convulsions, which not only means that there is more blood retention in the meat, but also that this method lends itself much more conveniently to the efficiency demands of modern mass slaughter procedures. It is so much easier to dispatch an animal on the conveyor belt, if it does not move.
The Halal is best. It involves cutting the throat and the vessels of the neck, also the windpipe. But the spinal cord is not damaged and there is a good reason for this. if the spinal cord is cut the animal will suffer from cardiac arrest, causing its heart to stop. the blood will stagnate in the animals body, science tells us that blood is a very good media for germs and bacteria, Which is why it is vital that the spinal cord is not cut so that the hear continues to pump blood out of the body. If there is no blood in the animals body chances of contamination are reduced majorly. Science also backs up the point that the Halal method inflicts minuscule pain to the animal compared with the non-Halal method. there was not change in the EEG graph for the first three seconds after the incision was made, indicating that the animal did not feel any pain from the cut itself. This is not surprising. Often, if we cut ourselves with a sharp implement, we do not notice until some time later. The following three seconds were characterised by a condition of deep sleep-like unconsciousness brought about by the draining of large quantities of blood from the body.
And this is why the halal method is more hygienic for us while also being less painful for the animal.
If you have any questions please ask.
There are a lot of misconceptions about halal meat.
The first of which is that killing a animal with the halal method is "inhumane" and "painful" for the animal. This is simply not true, and science will support my point.
The Non-Halal method involves electrocuting the animal until it is unconscious. this method of dispatch would appear to be much more peaceful for the onlooker. However, the EEG readings indicated severe pain immediately after stunning. Whereas in the first example, the animal seizes to feel pain due to the brain starvation of blood and oxygen – a brain death, to put it in laymen’s terms – the second example first causes a stoppage of the heart whilst the animal still feels pain. However, there are no unsightly convulsions, which not only means that there is more blood retention in the meat, but also that this method lends itself much more conveniently to the efficiency demands of modern mass slaughter procedures. It is so much easier to dispatch an animal on the conveyor belt, if it does not move.
The Halal is best. It involves cutting the throat and the vessels of the neck, also the windpipe. But the spinal cord is not damaged and there is a good reason for this. if the spinal cord is cut the animal will suffer from cardiac arrest, causing its heart to stop. the blood will stagnate in the animals body, science tells us that blood is a very good media for germs and bacteria, Which is why it is vital that the spinal cord is not cut so that the hear continues to pump blood out of the body. If there is no blood in the animals body chances of contamination are reduced majorly. Science also backs up the point that the Halal method inflicts minuscule pain to the animal compared with the non-Halal method. there was not change in the EEG graph for the first three seconds after the incision was made, indicating that the animal did not feel any pain from the cut itself. This is not surprising. Often, if we cut ourselves with a sharp implement, we do not notice until some time later. The following three seconds were characterised by a condition of deep sleep-like unconsciousness brought about by the draining of large quantities of blood from the body.
And this is why the halal method is more hygienic for us while also being less painful for the animal.
If you have any questions please ask.
The first of which is that killing a animal with the halal method is "inhumane" and "painful" for the animal. This is simply not true, and science will support my point.
The Non-Halal method involves electrocuting the animal until it is unconscious. this method of dispatch would appear to be much more peaceful for the onlooker. However, the EEG readings indicated severe pain immediately after stunning. Whereas in the first example, the animal seizes to feel pain due to the brain starvation of blood and oxygen – a brain death, to put it in laymen’s terms – the second example first causes a stoppage of the heart whilst the animal still feels pain. However, there are no unsightly convulsions, which not only means that there is more blood retention in the meat, but also that this method lends itself much more conveniently to the efficiency demands of modern mass slaughter procedures. It is so much easier to dispatch an animal on the conveyor belt, if it does not move.
The Halal is best. It involves cutting the throat and the vessels of the neck, also the windpipe. But the spinal cord is not damaged and there is a good reason for this. if the spinal cord is cut the animal will suffer from cardiac arrest, causing its heart to stop. the blood will stagnate in the animals body, science tells us that blood is a very good media for germs and bacteria, Which is why it is vital that the spinal cord is not cut so that the hear continues to pump blood out of the body. If there is no blood in the animals body chances of contamination are reduced majorly. Science also backs up the point that the Halal method inflicts minuscule pain to the animal compared with the non-Halal method. there was not change in the EEG graph for the first three seconds after the incision was made, indicating that the animal did not feel any pain from the cut itself. This is not surprising. Often, if we cut ourselves with a sharp implement, we do not notice until some time later. The following three seconds were characterised by a condition of deep sleep-like unconsciousness brought about by the draining of large quantities of blood from the body.
And this is why the halal method is more hygienic for us while also being less painful for the animal.
If you have any questions please ask.
Original post by redferry
Oh come on the vast majority of people whinging about halal are seriously unethical in their food choices, don't even pretend otherwise.
You want to see a painful death? Go spend some time in nature. You'll quickly realise having your throat slit is a pretty decent way to go compared to how nature intended...
You know what I never hear people complaining about? Fish. You know how fish die? They are left to suffocate slowly on the deck of a boat. If you want your animal rights cause that's probably one of the first to be adressing.
You want to see a painful death? Go spend some time in nature. You'll quickly realise having your throat slit is a pretty decent way to go compared to how nature intended...
You know what I never hear people complaining about? Fish. You know how fish die? They are left to suffocate slowly on the deck of a boat. If you want your animal rights cause that's probably one of the first to be adressing.
What you're essentially saying is that the meat industry is cruel so it doesn't matter if we make it a bit more cruel. That's not a very logically stable position.
Original post by ahmads96
There are a lot of misconceptions about halal meat.
The first of which is that killing a animal with the halal method is "inhumane" and "painful" for the animal. This is simply not true, and science will support my point.
The Non-Halal method involves electrocuting the animal until it is unconscious. this method of dispatch would appear to be much more peaceful for the onlooker. However, the EEG readings indicated severe pain immediately after stunning. Whereas in the first example, the animal seizes to feel pain due to the brain starvation of blood and oxygen – a brain death, to put it in laymen’s terms – the second example first causes a stoppage of the heart whilst the animal still feels pain. However, there are no unsightly convulsions, which not only means that there is more blood retention in the meat, but also that this method lends itself much more conveniently to the efficiency demands of modern mass slaughter procedures. It is so much easier to dispatch an animal on the conveyor belt, if it does not move.
The Halal is best. It involves cutting the throat and the vessels of the neck, also the windpipe. But the spinal cord is not damaged and there is a good reason for this. if the spinal cord is cut the animal will suffer from cardiac arrest, causing its heart to stop. the blood will stagnate in the animals body, science tells us that blood is a very good media for germs and bacteria, Which is why it is vital that the spinal cord is not cut so that the hear continues to pump blood out of the body. If there is no blood in the animals body chances of contamination are reduced majorly. Science also backs up the point that the Halal method inflicts minuscule pain to the animal compared with the non-Halal method. there was not change in the EEG graph for the first three seconds after the incision was made, indicating that the animal did not feel any pain from the cut itself. This is not surprising. Often, if we cut ourselves with a sharp implement, we do not notice until some time later. The following three seconds were characterised by a condition of deep sleep-like unconsciousness brought about by the draining of large quantities of blood from the body.
And this is why the halal method is more hygienic for us while also being less painful for the animal.
If you have any questions please ask.
The first of which is that killing a animal with the halal method is "inhumane" and "painful" for the animal. This is simply not true, and science will support my point.
The Non-Halal method involves electrocuting the animal until it is unconscious. this method of dispatch would appear to be much more peaceful for the onlooker. However, the EEG readings indicated severe pain immediately after stunning. Whereas in the first example, the animal seizes to feel pain due to the brain starvation of blood and oxygen – a brain death, to put it in laymen’s terms – the second example first causes a stoppage of the heart whilst the animal still feels pain. However, there are no unsightly convulsions, which not only means that there is more blood retention in the meat, but also that this method lends itself much more conveniently to the efficiency demands of modern mass slaughter procedures. It is so much easier to dispatch an animal on the conveyor belt, if it does not move.
The Halal is best. It involves cutting the throat and the vessels of the neck, also the windpipe. But the spinal cord is not damaged and there is a good reason for this. if the spinal cord is cut the animal will suffer from cardiac arrest, causing its heart to stop. the blood will stagnate in the animals body, science tells us that blood is a very good media for germs and bacteria, Which is why it is vital that the spinal cord is not cut so that the hear continues to pump blood out of the body. If there is no blood in the animals body chances of contamination are reduced majorly. Science also backs up the point that the Halal method inflicts minuscule pain to the animal compared with the non-Halal method. there was not change in the EEG graph for the first three seconds after the incision was made, indicating that the animal did not feel any pain from the cut itself. This is not surprising. Often, if we cut ourselves with a sharp implement, we do not notice until some time later. The following three seconds were characterised by a condition of deep sleep-like unconsciousness brought about by the draining of large quantities of blood from the body.
And this is why the halal method is more hygienic for us while also being less painful for the animal.
If you have any questions please ask.
I'm afraid you've been lied to http://www.rspca.org.uk/ImageLocator/LocateAsset?asset=document&assetId=1232719611043&mode=prd
Original post by Raymat
You will have your answer after you die.
Original post by ahmads96
There are a lot of misconceptions about halal meat.
The first of which is that killing a animal with the halal method is "inhumane" and "painful" for the animal. This is simply not true, and science will support my point.
The Non-Halal method involves electrocuting the animal until it is unconscious. this method of dispatch would appear to be much more peaceful for the onlooker.
The first of which is that killing a animal with the halal method is "inhumane" and "painful" for the animal. This is simply not true, and science will support my point.
The Non-Halal method involves electrocuting the animal until it is unconscious. this method of dispatch would appear to be much more peaceful for the onlooker.
Pretty much stopped reading at this point.
This post, as well as being a copy pasta from a pro-Islam source, essentially strawmans the whole argument, which is about stunned slaughter over unstunned slaughter. Evidence shows that stunned slaughter is the overwhelming best option.
Also, wtf is the 'the non-Halal method'? There is no such thing. You're just nitpicking a particular method of slaughter because you can make a partisan argument that unstunned Halal slaughter is better.
Original post by redferry
Oh come on the vast majority of people whinging about halal are seriously unethical in their food choices, don't even pretend otherwise.
You want to see a painful death? Go spend some time in nature. You'll quickly realise having your throat slit is a pretty decent way to go compared to how nature intended...
You know what I never hear people complaining about? Fish. You know how fish die? They are left to suffocate slowly on the deck of a boat. If you want your animal rights cause that's probably one of the first to be adressing.
You want to see a painful death? Go spend some time in nature. You'll quickly realise having your throat slit is a pretty decent way to go compared to how nature intended...
You know what I never hear people complaining about? Fish. You know how fish die? They are left to suffocate slowly on the deck of a boat. If you want your animal rights cause that's probably one of the first to be adressing.
This logic is ridiculous.
It's like saying: 'These people are already terminally ill, so don't even bother giving them the best quality end of life palliative care as possible, because they'll be dead soon anyway.'
Original post by Raymat
You will have your answer after you die.
Claims made with no evidence can be dismissed with no evidence.
By deduction, souls don't exist.
Original post by DaveSmith99
I'm afraid you've been lied to http://www.rspca.org.uk/ImageLocator/LocateAsset?asset=document&assetId=1232719611043&mode=prd
There is nothing in that whole report that proves that electrocuting is more hygienic or less painful for the animal. It simply states that the animal is conscious for longer which frankly doesn't prove anything.
Original post by h3isenberg
Pretty much stopped reading at this point.
This post, as well as being a copy pasta from a pro-Islam source, essentially strawmans the whole argument, which is about stunned slaughter over unstunned slaughter. Evidence shows that stunned slaughter is the overwhelming best option.
Also, wtf is the 'the non-Halal method'? There is no such thing. You're just nitpicking a particular method of slaughter because you can make a partisan argument that unstunned Halal slaughter is better.
This post, as well as being a copy pasta from a pro-Islam source, essentially strawmans the whole argument, which is about stunned slaughter over unstunned slaughter. Evidence shows that stunned slaughter is the overwhelming best option.
Also, wtf is the 'the non-Halal method'? There is no such thing. You're just nitpicking a particular method of slaughter because you can make a partisan argument that unstunned Halal slaughter is better.
And why exactly do think stunning is the better option?
Original post by ahmads96
And why exactly do think stunning is the better option?
You seem to not understand the terms that are being used and it'd be wise to learn what they do mean...
Electrocuting ≠ Stunning. They are very different (and quite obviously so).
eventually stunning will be banned as it causes more pain to the animal, and produces meat that is less healthy for the consumer.
also, why are people so bloody against halal slaughter. What do you think matters more- the conditions that the animal has been brought up in for years, or the pain they experience in the last 10 seconds of their life?
it's just away for islamophobes to do their thing with no risk of them being done for 'racism' etc.
also, why are people so bloody against halal slaughter. What do you think matters more- the conditions that the animal has been brought up in for years, or the pain they experience in the last 10 seconds of their life?
it's just away for islamophobes to do their thing with no risk of them being done for 'racism' etc.
Original post by h3isenberg
You seem to not understand the terms that are being used and it'd be wise to learn what they do mean...
Electrocuting ≠ Stunning. They are very different (and quite obviously so).
Electrocuting ≠ Stunning. They are very different (and quite obviously so).
actually, you're wrong.
stunning is a blanket term which covers captive bolt stunning (which is what you're thinking of) and electrical stunning (which is what ahmad is thinking of)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Abbatoir Vet
- Veterinary Medicine Applicant thread 2025 entry
- Should I go into Vet med?
- where i can find work experience for veterinary medicine application in Manchester
- Veterinary medicine and Surgery BSc
- have you ever been hurt or chased by an animal?
- Veterinary Medicine work experience
- Veterinary Medicine Courses
- veterinary work experience
- Higher English Persuasive Essay Suggestions?
- Who else is vegan on here?
- med to vet school?
- Veterinary nursing/Veterinary science
- City University of Hong Kong veterinary medicine
- vet med at Cambridge
- Abattoir work experience for vet medicine
- Freshers on TSR: What are your top 3 'Desert Island' items for going to Uni?
- Avatar
- Successful veterinary medicine applicants help
- 2023 King's Speech
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
