Denmark has banned Halal and Kosher slaughter

You're right that Qatar's wealth is from oil.

Japan's wealth is from Western values (free markets etc.).

If slavery is the source of Denmark's wealth, why is Sudan not rich? Sudan still does slavery. Denmark stopped centuries ago.

Fair enough but there is a difference. You stun a chicken, knock it out and kill it - it won't feel pain. You stun and human, they don't go unconscious and then kill them - pain.

No Japanese are organised people. It's their life.

We saw how organised they were after the Tsunami.

That's just their nature.

Japan has been successful before the West, and free markets isn't a solely Western value.

Therein lies the point, a country doesn't appear successful overnight. The Europeans killed for wealth and they shared it out.

The difference is Africans are even too selfish to spread out their wealth. Their leaders are sell-outs who let Western corporations to this date exploit their resources in return for a seat of power.

All irrelevant. The point of the matter, Danes can freely engage shagging animals.

Let's not play games, dear.

Yeah right, show me Japanese per capita GDP even approaching that of France and Britain (and the Netherlands) in the eighteenth century. That aside, if you're willing to attribute Europe's success to plunder, then what about Japanese imperialism in East Asia? They did inhuman things to the Chinese.

Wealth does not come from pure exploitation, it comes from good economic philosophies. Wealth is possible without abject exploitation / slavery. Europe is not wealthy due to exploitation; it is wealthy due to trade and productivity.

The difference is Africans are even too selfish to spread out their wealth. Their leaders are sell-outs who let Western corporations to this date exploit their resources in return for a seat of power.

Lol you're in denial. The reason why the west is so rich compared to everyone else apart from a few anomalies e.g. Qatar is due to the exploitation of people and resources of their former colonies. This gave them a massive head start, it is only now BRIC nations have begun to catch up. The UK is a small Island yet its GDP is bigger than 90% of the world. Its due to the colonies they exploited. By colonising 3/4 of the world they left problems when independence came and many wars as they left countries unstable. Colonisation caused relatively artificial lines to be drawn; countries' borders were drawn based on where the colonisers wanted them to be. What often ensued was that various ethnic groups were lumped together in one country even though they did not want to be e.g. Ogaden war between Somalia and Ethiopia.

Even today the west is taking advantage of poorer nations through IMF and world bank. They loan vast amounts of money to countries knowing they wont pay it back for a long time causing the loan to triple and therefore allowing the loaner to profit. Also when loans are given their are conditions such as opening up markets or privatising of government owned companies or resources. It is an Insult to suggest the west is only rich due economic policies, it due to colonialism whether past or modern e.g (IMF/World bank). This is seen through the fact that 7/10 countries with the highest GDP's have had colonises.

You have your causes and effects mixed up. The USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are doing well for themselves, because they follow a similar policy to that of the UK - and yet they were all, at one time, colonies of the UK. The UK was only able to create colonies for itself because it followed good economic policies. The UK's GDP is high because it was the first to develop things like the industrial revolution. It was the industrial revolution which allowed Europe to colonise Africa, for instance, not the colonisation of Africa which allowed British people to become rich. The rise in wealth accompanied the rise in imperialism, but it did not cause it. The Spanish did not follow the same kinds of capitalist policies, which is why Latin America is not as rich as North America.

I don't know what you're getting at in your criticisms of colonialism. I never wished to defend things like the carving up of Africa which you talk about. In many ways, colonialism was an atrocity (although I don't think every single thing about it was bad and some countries have not bothered to take responsibility for themselves since independence, when they should have). My point was that colonialism is not what made the West rich; the West's ideas made it rich and able to colonise the world.

The reason BRIC nations are beginning to catch up is because they are following Western capitalist policies, to some extent anyway. Russia is corrupt and China is an authoritarian hell. But China's rise to economic power has been accompanied by an economic shift in the capitalist direction - towards the economic model which the UK and the Netherlands pioneered a few centuries ago; the reason the Western world is wealthy. Look at countries like Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan after the war, South Korea, India, Germany after the war and the entire Anglo-sphere and tell me that wealth comes from colonialism. It's just not true.

The process of stunning an animal into unconsciousness is virtually instantaneous. The animal is then swiftly shot to cause death. Slitting an animal's throat does NOT cause instant death. Its blood drains from its body until there is not enough left to sustain the vital organs. Then the animal dies.

Can't comment on toxic gases as I haven't heard about the use of them at all. Where have you got that from?

Yeah, the giraffe thing wasn't great as far as how the media reported it, but maybe we weren't given the full story.

You are aware that all of Denmark is not a single entity. The government and private institutions such as zoos make independent decision. It isn't as if all of Denmark agreed killing that giraffe was the right thing to do. The fact it happened shortly before the banning of Halal and Kosher meats is a coincidence. Calling a country 'ridiculous' because of two separate news items, is well, quite frankly ridiculous.

Furthermore getting your throat slit is not 'instant death'. You retain consciousness and can feel pain until you eventually succumb to blood loss and shock. Stunning an animal prior to this, or other methods of slaughter, at least helps minimise the pain and emotional shock involved.

Denmark has banned Halal and Kosher slaughter as minister says "animal rights come before religion" Do you agree with this? What are your views on this?

I'm just stating how corrupt the society of Denmark is (not all obviously), the killing still happened and people still chose to watch and "educate" their children. That event just reminds me of a fictional tribal sacrifice seen in a book, except it actually happened and it was horrible. I'm linking the two because they allow this and not the Islamic/Jewish way of slaughtering meat. This isn't about animal rights, thus is a way to undermine and restrict the Islamic and Jewish faiths.
Here's evidence to show if the halal way of slaughtering meat is as painful as the "less inhumane way of the Western world"

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.
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.

cutting off the blood supply would usually cause immediate death.