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

Sharp rise in halal abattoirs slaughtering animals without stunning them first. watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PopaPork)
    You do know there is no difference in how the animals are kept until they are slaughtered

    but your argument is basic whataboutery but a very poor one
    I think he's arguments straight to the point and valid.. your just islamaphobic.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JohnCrichton89)
    Yeah our empathy with other creatures is a secret cover.

    In this society we empathise with other creatures, we lament being FORCED to pay Halal butcher with our taxes to torture animals, because the welfare demographic of Muslims that now resides in our country cant afford to do it themselves.

    If you don't share this sentiment, and it seems an alien concept to empathise with animals, please do us a favour and leave. There are plenty of countries that share your sentiment, take your pick. We really don't need you in Europe, please take some friends with you
    who is we ? define ' we ' for me.. We as in the islamaphobes or we as in the British people ? majority of British people don't even support your view only these rich posh kids on TSR!
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    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.
    No what I'm saying is the stance is totally hypocritical unless you are actually give a crap about animal welfare the rest of the time. And that having your throat slit is a pretty efficient way to die overall. When people start getting worked up about other animal welfare issues then I'll start seeing complaints about halal as legitimate concerns rather than simply an atco on Islam.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I am intrigued - how do YOU know if slaughtering the animal by slitting its throat is more humane or giving it an electric shock first, and then slitting its throat?
    Do you know of a research that got animals to fill out questionnaires on how they would prefer to be slaughtered?
    Or , in fact, hanging chickens upside down by their legs beside each other on a conveyer belt, giving them electric shocks while they're watching each other and then slitting their throats is how British non muslims prefer to eat their chicken?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    No what I'm saying is the stance is totally hypocritical unless you are actually give a crap about animal welfare the rest of the time. And that having your throat slit is a pretty efficient way to die overall. When people start getting worked up about other animal welfare issues then I'll start seeing complaints about halal as legitimate concerns rather than simply an atco on Islam.
    If some people being hypocritical results in less suffering in the meat industry then so be it. And stunning does result in less suffering, that much is indisputible.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I see both sides to this.

    On the one hand - if you care so much about how they kill animals, why aren't you vegetarian? I mean is there ever a humane way to slaughter a living, breathing being just to eat it's flesh?

    On the other - if you're going to meat, it could at least be treated nicely and killed in a less awful way before you eat it.

    I don't know. I would like to see it outlawed completely I won't lie. But I also think it's a bit weird when carnivores kick up a huge stink about it seeing as you already eat the meat, does it really affect you how it's killed?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Marco1)
    The situation speaks for itself and it's about time British non-Muslims grew a backbone and stuck up for their human rights too.
    Go vegan like me. Then you can realistically point the finger since you have no contribution to the suffering of animals. And how is exsanguination with animals any different to fish being drowned/suffocated and crab and lobster being boiled alive in restaurants?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    Go vegan like me. Then you can realistically point the finger since you have no contribution to the suffering of animals. And how is exsanguination with animals any different to fish being drowned/suffocated and crab and lobster being boiled alive in restaurants?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Finally someone with commonsense that speaks the truth.I will rep this when I go on my computer.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymοοse)
    A tad over-dramatic don't you think?

    1) You're comparing animals to humans
    2) You're using family members in your hypothetical
    3) Neither Halal nor Kosher methods of slaughter tear animals limb from limb while they're conscious and let them bleed out

    A more realistic hypothetical would be would you rather be killed immediately by having your throat slit swiftly and precisely - losing consciousness within seconds due to the rapid loss of blood and massive reduction in blood pressure or would you rather be stunned before being killed using a variety of stunning techniques, such as;

    1) Having an electrical current passed through your brain via large tongs placed on your head
    2) Having a metal bolt shot directly in to your brain with a gun
    3) Being gassed until you lose consciousness

    Be honest
    Lol you've completely misrepresented the point I was making.

    That there are more "humane" ways of death.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymοοse)
    A tad over-dramatic don't you think?

    1) You're comparing animals to humans
    2) You're using family members in your hypothetical
    3) Neither Halal nor Kosher methods of slaughter tear animals limb from limb while they're conscious and let them bleed out

    A more realistic hypothetical would be would you rather be killed immediately by having your throat slit swiftly and precisely - losing consciousness within seconds due to the rapid loss of blood and massive reduction in blood pressure or would you rather be stunned before being killed using a variety of stunning techniques, such as;

    1) Having an electrical current passed through your brain via large tongs placed on your head
    2) Having a metal bolt shot directly in to your brain with a gun
    3) Being gassed until you lose consciousness

    Be honest
    Bolt, obviously bolt. Instant loss of consciousness due to your brain being pulverised is always going to be less painful then bleeding out whileonscious, which in cattle often takes up to a minute.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    A team at the university of Hannover in Germany examined these claims through the use of EEG and ECG records during slaughter. Several electrodes were surgically implanted at various points of the skull of all the animals used in the experiment and they were then allowed to recover for several weeks. Some of the animals were subsequently slaughtered the halal way by making a swift, deep incision with a sharp knife on the neck, cutting the jugular veins and carotid arteries of both sides together with the trachea and esophagus but leaving the spinal cord intact. The remainder were stunned before slaughter using a captive bolt pistol method as is customary in Western slaughterhouses. The EEG and ECG recordings allowed to monitor the condition of the brain and heart throughout.

    The Halal method
    With the halal method of slaughter, 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 unconciousness brought about by the draining of large quantities of blood from the body. Thereafter the EEG recorded a zero reading, indicating no pain at all, yet at that time the heart was still beating and the body convulsing vigorously as a reflex reaction of the spinal cord. It is this phase which is most unpleasant to onlookers who are falsely convinced that the animal suffers whilst its brain does actually no longer record any sensual messages.

    The Western method
    Using the Western method, the animals were apparently unconscious after stunning, and 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 ceases 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.



    There are 2 sides to every story
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    If some people being hypocritical results in less suffering in the meat industry then so be it. And stunning does result in less suffering, that much is indisputible.
    I doubt it makes any real difference to the animams being kkilled. Death is death, it's going to be panickingn to **** regardless, those few extra seconds of pain are nothing.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by h3isenberg)
    Erm can you substantiate that point pls?



    No, it's very possible. Just use electrocardiograms to monitor electrical pain signals to the brain.
    I think you mean electroencephalogram, ECGs don't measure pain lol
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    I doubt it makes any real difference to the animams being kkilled. Death is death, it's going to be panickingn to **** regardless, those few extra seconds of pain are nothing.
    Numerous animal welfare groups and independent panels who have studied the evidence disagree with you. As does the government who have outlawed unstunned slaughter for all non-religious groups. It's also rarely a few seconds, in the case of cattle it is often over 2 minutes of intense pain before they finnally die.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hukdealz)
    A team at the university of Hannover in Germany examined these claims through the use of EEG and ECG records during slaughter. Several electrodes were surgically implanted at various points of the skull of all the animals used in the experiment and they were then allowed to recover for several weeks. Some of the animals were subsequently slaughtered the halal way by making a swift, deep incision with a sharp knife on the neck, cutting the jugular veins and carotid arteries of both sides together with the trachea and esophagus but leaving the spinal cord intact. The remainder were stunned before slaughter using a captive bolt pistol method as is customary in Western slaughterhouses. The EEG and ECG recordings allowed to monitor the condition of the brain and heart throughout.

    The Halal method
    With the halal method of slaughter, 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 unconciousness brought about by the draining of large quantities of blood from the body. Thereafter the EEG recorded a zero reading, indicating no pain at all, yet at that time the heart was still beating and the body convulsing vigorously as a reflex reaction of the spinal cord. It is this phase which is most unpleasant to onlookers who are falsely convinced that the animal suffers whilst its brain does actually no longer record any sensual messages.

    The Western method
    Using the Western method, the animals were apparently unconscious after stunning, and 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 ceases 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.



    There are 2 sides to every story
    If you read the actual study and not a propagandised version of it from an extremely biased Islamic source then you will discover that in the conclusion the report admits that it discovered that they were using a faulty stun gun. This is the only evidence that supports your view whereas there are dozens of studies using functional equipment that are in opposition to your view.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hukdealz)
    A team at the university of Hannover in Germany examined these claims through the use of EEG and ECG records during slaughter. Several electrodes were surgically implanted at various points of the skull of all the animals used in the experiment and they were then allowed to recover for several weeks. Some of the animals were subsequently slaughtered the halal way by making a swift, deep incision with a sharp knife on the neck, cutting the jugular veins and carotid arteries of both sides together with the trachea and esophagus but leaving the spinal cord intact. The remainder were stunned before slaughter using a captive bolt pistol method as is customary in Western slaughterhouses. The EEG and ECG recordings allowed to monitor the condition of the brain and heart throughout.

    The Halal method
    With the halal method of slaughter, 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 unconciousness brought about by the draining of large quantities of blood from the body. Thereafter the EEG recorded a zero reading, indicating no pain at all, yet at that time the heart was still beating and the body convulsing vigorously as a reflex reaction of the spinal cord. It is this phase which is most unpleasant to onlookers who are falsely convinced that the animal suffers whilst its brain does actually no longer record any sensual messages.

    The Western method
    Using the Western method, the animals were apparently unconscious after stunning, and 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 ceases 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.



    There are 2 sides to every story
    You mean that study from 1978 that only used 15 animals, has been countered by more recent studies and that the researcher later admitted the equipment may not have been functioning properly? Also even that study says that “After captive bolt stunning most severe general disturbances (waves of 1-2 Hz) occurred in the EEG, which almost with certainty eliminates a sense of pain.”

    And you don't seem to be remotely comprehending the paper I sent you: up to a minute for final collapse. As in, after the halal cut some of the animals were able to fall over and get back to their feet for up to a minute while choking on their own blood from a massive throat wound. Do you seriously think that won't hurt? There is plenty of evidence that stunning is less painful (ha, just realised that paper was written by the guy who taught me to kill turkeys. Good lecturer )
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    Numerous animal welfare groups and independent panels who have studied the evidence disagree with you. As does the government who have outlawed unstunned slaughter for all non-religious groups. It's also rarely a few seconds, in the case of cattle it is often over 2 minutes of intense pain before they finnally die.
    I do literally study animals. Believe me for most animals having their throat slit would be the least of their worries.

    Often 2 minutes? There's no way in hell that's true. Something would have had to go wrong there.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    I do literally study animals. Believe me for most animals having their throat slit would be the least of their worries.

    Often 2 minutes? There's no way in hell that's true. Something would have had to go wrong there.
    And we're back to the nonsensical argument that the meat industry is so cruel in general that efforts to reduce suffering are pointless.

    It often takes up to or over 2 minutes in cattle due to a process known as cartoid ballooning

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22063219
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by infairverona)
    I see both sides to this.

    On the one hand - if you care so much about how they kill animals, why aren't you vegetarian? I mean is there ever a humane way to slaughter a living, breathing being just to eat it's flesh?

    On the other - if you're going to meat, it could at least be treated nicely and killed in a less awful way before you eat it.

    I don't know. I would like to see it outlawed completely I won't lie. But I also think it's a bit weird when carnivores kick up a huge stink about it seeing as you already eat the meat, does it really affect you how it's killed?
    Fair enough, but how is something like that law going to come about?

    Honestly it will be a gradual progression of animal rights and empathy, put simply. We will phase out the worst and gradually progress towards slaughtering animals all together.
    What Muslims and their apologists are suggesting in this thread, is that we take a step backwards. Notice the arguments, "If you can do X, this isn't that much worse".

    Irrespective of pain, it's the religious slaughter of animals. As if we don't have Muslims killing enough in line with their religion.

    It's part of the larger problem that is Islam, infecting every aspect off western society under the guise of many apologetics.

    We know that letting Muslims have Halal isn't enough, they demand our taxes pay for it, then they demand non-halal food be taken off the shelves. We have seen it happen over and over in every country.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    No half way about it. Either you go vegan or vegetarian, or you ONLY buy poultry and meat that has been cared for the best possible way.

    If you somehow give a **** about the way it was KILLED yet don't care about the atrocious conditions they're kept in whilst alive, then you're a hypocrite.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 14, 2015
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
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.