Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sabby888)
    You can argue as much as you want, the fact remains that it would make absolutely no sense to forbid mistreatment or harm to an animal in its lifetime, only to then slaughter it painfully.
    When the Quran was written, severing a major artery to allow death by exsanguination was probably the most humane and efficient way of killing (after the Hindu and Sikh jhatka method, which results in instantaneous death by completely severing the head in one stroke).

    However, things have moved on in the last 1400 years (as you would expect). The most humane method available now is to stun the animal first, before severing the artery.

    Simple question:
    You are going to be killed by having your throat cut and bleeding to death.
    Would you rather be unconscious, or fully conscious, when your throat is cut?...

    And there is your answer to why stunning is more humane.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    When the Quran was written, severing a major artery to allow death by exsanguination was probably the most humane and efficient way of killing (after the Hindu and Sikh jhatka method, which results in instantaneous death by completely severing the head in one stroke).

    However, things have moved on in the last 1400 years (as you would expect). The most humane method available now is to stun the animal first, before severing the artery.

    Simple question:
    You are going to be killed by having your throat cut and bleeding to death.
    Would you rather be unconscious, or fully conscious, when your throat is cut?...

    And there is your answer to why stunning is more humane.
    Simple answer: I'd rather not be killed

    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zerforax)
    Simple answer: I'd rather not be killed

    How convenient!
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    When the Quran was written, severing a major artery to allow death by exsanguination was probably the most humane and efficient way of killing (after the Hindu and Sikh jhatka method, which results in instantaneous death by completely severing the head in one stroke).

    However, things have moved on in the last 1400 years (as you would expect). The most humane method available now is to stun the animal first, before severing the artery.

    Simple question:
    You are going to be killed by having your throat cut and bleeding to death.
    Would you rather be unconscious, or fully conscious, when your throat is cut?...

    And there is your answer to why stunning is more humane.
    If you were as well-informed as you claim to be you'd know that about 88% of Islamic slaughters use pre-stunning.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sabby888)
    If you were as well-informed as you claim to be you'd know that about 88% of Islamic slaughters use pre-stunning.
    Read my posts. I have stated this several times. It is only the non-stunned slaughter that I have issue with (which includes all kosher meat). And the ridiculous and clearly false claims of the non-stunning apologists!
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Read my posts. I have stated this several times. It is only the non-stunned slaughter that I have issue with (which includes all kosher meat). And the ridiculous and clearly false claims of the non-stunning apologists!
    I'm incredibly confused. 88% of halal farms in the UK use pre-stunning before the animals are killed. That's the vast majority. What's your problem with halal meat then? What's the point of your argument?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sabby888)
    I'm incredibly confused. 88% of halal farms in the UK use pre-stunning before the animals are killed.
    Animals are slaughtered in registered slaughterhouses, not on farms. There are very few "halal farms". Most halal meat comes from regular farms, many of which will already operate to high standards of animal welfare as a matter of course.

    That's the vast majority. What's your problem with halal meat then? What's the point of your argument?
    Read my previous post.
    I am against non-stunned slaughter, so I have a problem with about 15% of halal meat and 100% of kosher meat.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by banterboy)
    Are you seriously asking why huge amounts of packaged meat from another country being imported into the UK being fraudulent is different to one minimum wage worker picking up the wrong bag?
    Yes, I am.In both scenarios, the people (or person) did not know what they were eating.
    In that sense, it is basically the same media story. Just because it was one individual instead of the nation, it does not mean it is any less relevant or important.

    Also, he did not pick up the 'wrong bag'. Clearly, the bag said the contents were cheese and onion. By saying that, you are basically blaming the individual for an error that was not his.


    Their really wasn't a reason for you to state that he is of 'minimum wage'.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SalmaSalma)
    Yes, I am.In both scenarios, the people (or person) did not know what they were eating.
    In that sense, it is basically the same media story. Just because it was one individual instead of the nation, it does not mean it is any less relevant or important.

    Also, he did not pick up the 'wrong bag'. Clearly, the bag said the contents were cheese and onion. By saying that, you are basically blaming the individual for an error that was not his.


    Their really wasn't a reason for you to state that he is of 'minimum wage'.
    One person dying.

    70 million people dying.


    Nah just because the latter is an entire nation dead doesn't make it any different to one person dying, they're basically the same thing.

    By worker obvs i mean the person who mispackaged.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by banterboy)
    One person dying.

    70 million people dying.


    Nah just because the latter is an entire nation dead doesn't make it any different to one person dying, they're basically the same thing.

    By worker obvs i mean the person who mispackaged.
    How are you comparing this to death?!
    I'm sorry, but that is just plain stupid.
    It seems to be that on most threads, SOME people on TSR have the urge to equate the most simple concept to the most horrific. It doesn't help your argument so why even bother? :curious:
    You might want to make your replies a little more 'obvs' because I am pretty sure everyone interpreted it the same way I did.]
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up sugar, or salt?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.