Turn on thread page Beta

Thoughts on current debate, stunning or Jewish, Islamic methods of slaughter? watch

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by de_monies)
    The economist isn't exactly impartial when it comes to Islam:
    http://www.economist.com/topics/islam
    Yeah you're right they tend to be pro-Islam. From the link that you link most of it isn't to do with Islam rather Muslims/middle eastern politics. I found two articles about Islam http://www.economist.com/node/21525400 This article uses Mustafa Akyol (a pro-modernist Muslim), Tariq Ramadan (if you're a westerner he may seem influential but in the Sunni Muslim community he isn't really accepted and is known for controversial opinions) and Mohammad Fadel (who from the implied support for Muʿtazilah makes it clear his a modernist). http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsb...-and-democracy - This video again promotes a modern Islam interpretation.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by I-Am-A-Tripod)
    NO they cant, which is why many vegetarians have certain mineral dificiencies. Drinkng milk/ other animal products can address some of these deficiencies.
    A medically a balanced diet is most advantageousm not one or the other - and i would argue that most people consume too much red meat to be on a balanced one.

    And yet Norweigans go around harpooning whales

    There is no weight to the arguments you put forward. The only argument against current meat consumption levels is that we, humans, have created an artificial species dynamic with a astonomical amount of cattle on the planet to feed us that produce so much methane that we are in danger of altering our planets climate.
    There is an estimated 1.7 billion livestock animals currently on the planet.
    Yes, they can. Stating SOME vegetarians deficiencies as a argument against veganism is like stating some meat eaters (e.g. anorexics) deficiencies as an argument against meat-eating. It's idiotic. Link me to a scientific journal which has actually stated such a thing. Again, you can have a medical balanced non-meat, non-diary diet. To state otherwise without any sort of presenting evidence is idiotic, the burden of proof is upon you. There are body builders that don't eat meat. Vegans have had similar morality right and generally better health rights than non-vegans although that's to do with the abuse of meat eating rather than the benefits of veganism but still it shows that veganism isn't dangerous to ones health.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
    This point has already been addressed earlier - kosher/halal animals are not necessarrily free range - you only need to go to indonesia the largest muslim country in the world to see that. what was your point?
    I'm fully aware they aren't necessarily free range - whats your point? My point was exactly as I said. Most people happily eat non-free range food so in my view, they have no moral standing in dictating that the halal/kosher slaughter is unacceptably cruel. I will give time of day to those who do ensure they eat free range (i.e. NO KFC., NO value chicken, NO value eggs etc.) but I still find it difficult to believe anyone can have a genuinely strong interest in the welfare of an animal they want to be killed and eaten.

    (Original post by Tahooper)
    Never heard of "free-range" have you? :facepalm:

    Animals aren't killed for pleasure, they are killed so we can eat their meat which is high in protein, essential fats et al.
    Most people don't eat free range - hence why the Government has been forced to intervene with pigs, and soon with poultry...

    And yes it is for pleasure. People don't eat meat for the nutrients, they eat it for either the taste, or the convenience. It is in no way whatsoever essential - ergo, it's for pleasure.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by callum9999)
    I'm fully aware they aren't necessarily free range - whats your point? My point was exactly as I said. Most people happily eat non-free range food so in my view, they have no moral standing in dictating that the halal/kosher slaughter is unacceptably cruel. I will give time of day to those who do ensure they eat free range (i.e. NO KFC., NO value chicken, NO value eggs etc.) but I still find it difficult to believe anyone can have a genuinely strong interest in the welfare of an animal they want to be killed and eaten.

    That was my point- that i couldnt see yours it appeared you were suggessting kosher/halal meat was at least better becasue it was always free range - it isnt.

    As far as i can see you are just acting the hypocrite claiming 'you have time' for people that eat free range- breeding animals to eat is an un-natural life for the animals and calves etc are removed from their breeding parents at a young age. Farm breeds themselves are unknown to nature- they have been engineered through breeding by man for thousands of years for the purpose of being captive on a farm. Whether they are free range or stored in cupboard not is a redundant point. It seems to me you can only have this standpoint and look credible if you are a full-on vegan, anyhting less is a joke.

    im not a vegi and so have no issue either way. The point i made at the beginning was it was a pointless excercise in tourturing an animal prior to slaughter when it served no purpose for the food chain.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
    Yes, they can. Stating SOME vegetarians deficiencies as a argument against veganism is like stating some meat eaters (e.g. anorexics) deficiencies as an argument against meat-eating. It's idiotic. Link me to a scientific journal which has actually stated such a thing. Again, you can have a medical balanced non-meat, non-diary diet. To state otherwise without any sort of presenting evidence is idiotic, the burden of proof is upon you. There are body builders that don't eat meat. Vegans have had similar morality right and generally better health rights than non-vegans although that's to do with the abuse of meat eating rather than the benefits of veganism but still it shows that veganism isn't dangerous to ones health.
    "all the benefits you mentioned can be found in a vegan diet " Again, No they cant. you would need to supplement your diet from non vegan sources (particulalry in the case of B12).

    I dont need to link scientific journals becuase Ive a med degree so my opinion is based on knowledge, and the experience that most poeple i have seen that have had significant deficinecies have been vegetarians. SOme of the sources that vegs think they get form vegs are not to the same grade of usability in the body as animal soruces ( iron for example) There might be some vegs that have avoided such issues but they generally are the exception rather than the rule. you can did out sources to disprove if you like though.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by I-Am-A-Tripod)
    "all the benefits you mentioned can be found in a vegan diet " Again, No they cant. you would need to supplement your diet from non vegan sources (particulalry in the case of B12).

    I dont need to link scientific journals becuase Ive a med degree so my opinion is based on knowledge, and the experience that most poeple i have seen that have had significant deficinecies have been vegetarians. SOme of the sources that vegs think they get form vegs are not to the same grade of usability in the body as animal soruces ( iron for example) There might be some vegs that have avoided such issues but they generally are the exception rather than the rule. you can did out sources to disprove if you like though.
    http://www.vegansociety.com/lifestyl...ition/b12.aspx http://www.pamrotella.com/health/b12.html It doesn't matter whether you have a medical degree, you can't be making claims like that without any sort of evidence. Your personal experience is just that, your personal experience. I have never seen any sort of reputable scientific journal or magazine that criticized a vegan diet yet I've seen plenty that advocate it. Evidence or GTFO.

    Lets assume for a minute that they are the exception rather than the rule. Doesn't that suggest that the vegan diet isn't to blame rather the abuse of the vegan diet which is common is to blame? Just like eating meat can be perfectly healthy but most abuse it hence unhealthy.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
    That was my point- that i couldnt see yours it appeared you were suggessting kosher/halal meat was at least better becasue it was always free range - it isnt.

    As far as i can see you are just acting the hypocrite claiming 'you have time' for people that eat free range- breeding animals to eat is an un-natural life for the animals and calves etc are removed from their breeding parents at a young age. Farm breeds themselves are unknown to nature- they have been engineered through breeding by man for thousands of years for the purpose of being captive on a farm. Whether they are free range or stored in cupboard not is a redundant point. It seems to me you can only have this standpoint and look credible if you are a full-on vegan, anyhting less is a joke.

    im not a vegi and so have no issue either way. The point i made at the beginning was it was a pointless excercise in tourturing an animal prior to slaughter when it served no purpose for the food chain.
    I was suggesting nothing of the sort and am confused how you came to such an interpretation? Can you point out somewhere I even vaguely hinted kosher/halal meat was better? I have no such opinion.

    How exactly does that make me a hypocrite? To be a hypocrite I'd have to criticise others for doing something I do - I don't believe I have done so?

    How is their method of upbringing "redundant" but their method of slaughter important? And it's hardly torture - if done correctly it's pretty likely it's almost painless (theoretically, the massive sudden drop in blood pressure causes the cow etc. to pass out - that doesn't always happen though). Though technically, I don't know if it's even been (or can be) proven that animals feel pain (I know it looks like they do, but if you actually study the field you will quickly realise how much anthropomorphising you actually do with animals - it certainly made me rethink all my previous held assumptions).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
    http://www.vegansociety.com/lifestyl...ition/b12.aspx http://www.pamrotella.com/health/b12.html It doesn't matter whether you have a medical degree, you can't be making claims like that without any sort of evidence. Your personal experience is just that, your personal experience. I have never seen any sort of reputable scientific journal or magazine that criticized a vegan diet yet I've seen plenty that advocate it. Evidence or GTFO.

    Lets assume for a minute that they are the exception rather than the rule. Doesn't that suggest that the vegan diet isn't to blame rather the abuse of the vegan diet which is common is to blame? Just like eating meat can be perfectly healthy but most abuse it hence unhealthy.
    This is why i dont like talking about subjects like this with lay/internet keybaord warriors = they think they know everything and yet know nothing. Do 5 years of medicine and then some significant research then come back to me , else as you so eloquently put it GTFO

    Your method of debate is laughable - your first link 'vegansociety.com' states that vegans need to eat food fortified with B12 - what did i just tell you earlier - Vegans need to add supplement to their diet ( particuarly B12) Moron :facepalm:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by I-Am-A-Tripod)
    This is why i dont like talking about subjects like this with lay/internet keybaord warriors = they think they know everything and yet know nothing. Do 5 years of medicine and then some significant research then come back to me , else as you so eloquently put it GTFO

    Your method of debate is laughable - your first link 'vegansociety.com' states that vegans need to eat food fortified with B12 - what did i just tell you earlier - Vegans need to add supplement to their diet ( particuarly B12) Moron :facepalm:
    But you don't link **** yet expect me to take your word? If it was such basic knowledge amongst med students, 2 minutes googling would have provided you with evidence. Also, you said that it comes from non vegan sources. How does B12 come from non-vegan sources? The article I linked stated that they could be found from non-animal sources hence still vegan sources. So, why you facepalming? As I said, think critically provide evidence or stop debating. That's how a debate works. You don't just appeal to authority.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by callum9999)
    I was suggesting nothing of the sort and am confused how you came to such an interpretation? Can you point out somewhere I even vaguely hinted kosher/halal meat was better? I have no such opinion.

    How exactly does that make me a hypocrite? To be a hypocrite I'd have to criticise others for doing something I do - I don't believe I have done so?

    How is their method of upbringing "redundant" but their method of slaughter important? And it's hardly torture - if done correctly it's pretty likely it's almost painless (theoretically, the massive sudden drop in blood pressure causes the cow etc. to pass out - that doesn't always happen though). Though technically, I don't know if it's even been (or can be) proven that animals feel pain (I know it looks like they do, but if you actually study the field you will quickly realise how much anthropomorphising you actually do with animals - it certainly made me rethink all my previous held assumptions).
    The aknowledgement that animals feel pain is not anthropomorphising at all, most if not all animals have pain receptors and feel stress when going through something like a halal slaughter. If anything thinking that animals get upset with thier surroundings in captivity is anthropomorphising.

    There is no medical technique in slitting an animals throat - it isnt done to cause the animal to 'pass out' In fact the slit is suppsosed to be small so that the heart is kept pumping as long as possible in order to pump as much blood out a it can and keep the animal alive for as long as possible. 'theoretically' means nothing in this forum.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
    But you don't link **** yet expect me to take your word? If it was such basic knowledge amongst med students, 2 minutes googling would have provided you with evidence. Also, you said that it comes from non vegan sources. How does B12 come from non-vegan sources? The article I linked stated that they could be found from non-animal sources hence still vegan sources. So, why you facepalming? As I said, think critically provide evidence or stop debating. That's how a debate works. You don't just appeal to authority.
    No i wont continue to debate this with you because have shown you have less than a tiny understanding of this subject, what would be the point in me trying to make a technical point to a moron? Thats why i facepalm.

    My reasoning ? - quote "How does B12 come from non-vegan sources? The article I linked stated that they could be found from non-animal sources hence still vegan sources. "
    = Re-read your own article again , you should find it will clearly state there are no recommended dietry non- vegan sources of B12, which is why you are advised ( as i did at the start) to take on a balanced diet or else you have to add supplement to a vegan diet. End of.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by I-Am-A-Tripod)
    No i wont continue to debate this with you because have shown you have less than a tiny understanding of this subject, what would be the point in me trying to make a technical point to a moron? Thats why i facepalm.

    My reasoning ? - quote "How does B12 come from non-vegan sources? The article I linked stated that they could be found from non-animal sources hence still vegan sources. "
    = Re-read your own article again , you should find it will clearly state there are no recommended dietry non- vegan sources of B12, which is why you are advised ( as i did at the start) to take on a balanced diet or else you have to add supplement to a vegan diet. End of.
    How have I shown such a thing? Because I'm not taking your word? A debate is pointless without evidence considering your making claims, is it really such a terrible thing that I'm asking for evidence?

    P1. Vegan diet = non-animal source diet
    P2. "B12 can be found in foods fortified with B12 e.g. plant milks, some soy products and some breakfast cereals or B12 supplements" http://www.vegansociety.com/lifestyl...ition/b12.aspx
    P3. None of those things contain a trace of animal
    C. Therefore, they are still a part of the vegan diet.

    Is that syllogism hard to follow? Explain to me which premise you disagree with.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
    How have I shown such a thing? Because I'm not taking your word? A debate is pointless without evidence considering your making claims, is it really such a terrible thing that I'm asking for evidence?

    P1. Vegan diet = non-animal source diet
    P2. "B12 can be found in foods fortified with B12 e.g. plant milks, some soy products and some breakfast cereals or B12 supplements" http://www.vegansociety.com/lifestyl...ition/b12.aspx
    P3. None of those things contain a trace of animal
    C. Therefore, they are still a part of the vegan diet.

    Is that syllogism hard to follow? Explain to me which premise you disagree with.
    There is no non-animal sources of B12, it is derived from bacteria growing in animals. i think thats the point hes making vegans have to take it artifically as a supplemet or have vegan foods with added supplement (fortified)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by callum9999)
    I was suggesting nothing of the sort and am confused how you came to such an interpretation? Can you point out somewhere I even vaguely hinted kosher/halal meat was better? I have no such opinion.

    How exactly does that make me a hypocrite? To be a hypocrite I'd have to criticise others for doing something I do - I don't believe I have done so?

    How is their method of upbringing "redundant" but their method of slaughter important? And it's hardly torture - if done correctly it's pretty likely it's almost painless (theoretically, the massive sudden drop in blood pressure causes the cow etc. to pass out - that doesn't always happen though). Though technically, I don't know if it's even been (or can be) proven that animals feel pain (I know it looks like they do, but if you actually study the field you will quickly realise how much anthropomorphising you actually do with animals - it certainly made me rethink all my previous held assumptions).
    Your a hypocrite because you critisise people for not eating free range animals, (for waht reason i dont know) thats an oxymoron, unless you are a vegan, who could claim smoe moral ground by disagreeing with the eating of any animal.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
    There is no non-animal sources of B12, it is derived from bacteria growing in animals. i think thats the point hes making vegans have to take it artifically as a supplemet or have vegan foods with added supplement (fortified)
    But, it isn't.

    All of the Vitamin B12 in the world ultimately comes from bacteria. Neither plants nor animals can synthesize it. But plants can be contaminated with B12 when they come in contact with soil bacteria that produce it. Animal foods are rich in B12 only because animals eat foods that are contaminated with it or because bacteria living in an animal's intestines make it.
    http://www.pamrotella.com/health/b12.html

    If it doesn't come from animals, it's a part of vegan. It's that simple. By fortifying you aren't using animal sources.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
    But, it isn't.



    http://www.pamrotella.com/health/b12.html

    If it doesn't come from animals, it's a part of vegan. It's that simple. By fortifying you aren't using animal sources.
    Eh? plant sources are miniscule compared to animal source - you would have to eat 20 times amuch to get the same amount as from 2 eggs. Your link jsut said its cultivated inside animals! Which is why vegans are fed fortified stuff - its another way of taking supplement for vitamins they cant gets properly in their diet. And how do you know where the B12 was derived that is added to your cornflakes
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    I have witnessed a animal being killed to be eaten at a young age. My grandpa killed it. The animal was owned by my grandparents and I use to take it to roam around as it pleased most days in summer. Animal welfare is taken very seriously in Islam. I am not much of a muslim I don't know much about it but I do remember my grandparents saying things like, it is living and breathing it deserves to walk and live just like us and so I did alot of herding around hills at a young age. When it was killed to eat, I didnt feel much for it. I just accepted that was the sequence of life. We had respect for the animal and were silent for much of the time it was being killed and after. Grandpa took it very seriously. We knew that the animal was special. Consumption of meat should not be as it is right now. The whole idea of killing it in a instint causes a mass killing at one time, it is obviously a favoured technique of a entrepeniour. I am not saying this because I come from a muslim background but I feel that a animal deserves more attention than a simple gun to the head. After this method has been introduced a huge mass production of meat was able to come forth. We now have meat daily, a human doesnt need the amount of meat we consume in a day in a week. By doing it the traditional way we will bring something which humans are trying to erase, the fact a animal is dying. We feel it is okay to kill and treat it as we like because we are not causing it any pain. Less animals would die if we did kill them the traditional way.

    Doesnt the meat seem a little more precious when it is killed the traditional way? Stunning to the head makes the animal seem worthless to me, whereas if a animal was killed the traditional way I feel pain with the animal.

    Imagine it this way. You are at war, it is easier to kill a human with a bullet, but stabbing with a sword makes you think twice. Less humans are killed with the sword, more is felt by the stabber when he proceeds to kill, but he continues to do so as it is his duty to serve his nation. Killing with bullets happens so suddenly you don't even realise, is that how little a human life should be worth? This is the same case with the animal, by killing it the traditional way we will be able to reduce the amount of consumption of meat to the level that we as humans need, no more or less. It would cost more to have it killed the traditional way, this also plays in the hands of companies.

    I think much of this argument is missing because companies want people to favour the stunning method as it allows them to kill the animal cheaper and quicker.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
    Humans are more important than animals in so far as my child is more important than any other child or my wife is more important than any other women. If it was them or us, I'd side with us but it isn't. It is for that reason why I support animal testing for scientific research. However, that doesn't mean that we should accept people killing other women or children, does it? And humans aren't only sentient beings. http://www.ciwf.org.uk/animal_sentie...e/default.aspx Also, what about non-sentient human being? A severely disabled (mentally + physically) person? Or very young babies? Can we eat them? Do what ever we please with them?
    You're against eating meat (even though you do it yourself) but you support the needless testing of animals? You can use stem cells which produce nearly the same results as animal testing torture?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
    Eh? plant sources are miniscule compared to animal source - you would have to eat 20 times amuch to get the same amount as from 2 eggs. Your link jsut said its cultivated inside animals! Which is why vegans are fed fortified stuff - its another way of taking supplement for vitamins they cant gets properly in their diet. And how do you know where the B12 was derived that is added to your cornflakes
    Yes you are right that they are minuscule but we don't really need that much, I read that you needed only about 5 micrograms of B12 and that's the optimum intake, EU recommends 1 microgram a day (1.5 according to the NHS) to avoid B12 deficiency. B12 deficiency is rare in itself and there's been no major damage done to MOST vegans.

    Anyway, according to this source it's possible for B12 to be fortified into food without using any animal products hence B12 supplements can still be vegan. Some companies may use gelatine but that's just their choice. It's possible to not use animal products hence still a part of vegan diet. Also, according to the above source and other "Rhone Poulenc Biochimie of France, is using a genetically engineered microorganism to produce B12 ".

    (Original post by Tahooper)
    You're against eating meat (even though you do it yourself) but you support the needless testing of animals? You can use stem cells which produce nearly the same results as animal testing torture?
    They aren't sufficient alternatives. http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showpost.php?p=35162473&postcoun t=52 http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showpost.php?p=35162538&postcoun t=54 http://www.understandinganimalresearch. org.uk/about_research/myths_and_facts

    "We cannot yet reproduce complex diseases in a cell culture, get a computer to cough, or examine a whole beating heart in a test-tube. By law, animals must not be used in a research project if viable non-animal techniques are available.

    Most research is already carried out using these other methods. But we still need to use animals at some point. The living body is much more than just a collection of its parts; we need to understand how they interact. Humans can only be used in limited situations.

    Scientists have strong ethical, economic and legal obligations to use animals in research only when necessary. Thus the number of research animals used annually in the UK has almost halved in the last 30 years. As science progresses, it may be possible to reduce further the numbers of animals used in some areas. In other areas, the numbers of animals may increase.

    The guiding principles in animal research today are called the three Rs: Refinement, to make sure animals suffer as little as possible; Reduction, to minimise the number of animals used; Replacement, to replace animals with non-animal techniques wherever possible;"
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
    Your a hypocrite because you critisise people for not eating free range animals, (for waht reason i dont know) thats an oxymoron, unless you are a vegan, who could claim smoe moral ground by disagreeing with the eating of any animal.
    Not exactly... I criticise people who eat free-range as well - just marginally less than those who eat factory farmed. And yes, I don't eat any animal, perhaps I should have mentioned it but I thought me complaining about people eating animals kinda gave it away - evidently not.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

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.