Banning halal/religious slaughter for meat campaign is silly + racist Watch

This discussion is closed.
Twinpeaks
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#21
Report 4 years ago
#21
How can you endorse such cruelty to animals?


As an 'ordinary school girl' with apparently no relevant religious affiliation, surely you can see that the benefit of banning halal meat i.e cruel methods of killing animals for meat, outweighs the cost of adhering to a self-righteous religious belief?



Why humans hold old fashioned, barbaric religious tradition above animal welfare is beyond me. I think it's disgusting.
4
al_94
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#22
Report 4 years ago
#22
Banning religious slaughter is what the white racists/nationalists/islamophobic people want because they believe it will result in Muslims leaving the UK which is why they really want it banned.
0
Birkenhead
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#23
Report 4 years ago
#23
(Original post by al_94)
Banning religious slaughter is what the white racists/nationalists/islamophobic people want because they believe it will result in Muslims leaving the UK which is why they really want it banned.
Ludicrous.
1
Twinpeaks
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#24
Report 4 years ago
#24
(Original post by Hopefulcici)
I don't particularly see what's wrong. Halal and non halal meat taste similar anyways. I don't think its fair for both Jews and Muslims to have their requirements taking away from them. If you don't want kosher or halal just don't buy it, also why all of a sudden are we getting hyped over how the animal is killed. Isn't actually killing the animal more so cruel than the method. If that's so we should ban all meat!!

Posted from TSR Mobile

So you think the inhumane killing of animals that leads to excessive and prolonged suffering is the same as killing the animals in a non-suffering manner because the end result of the animal when dead will be the same?


Is this the logic of your religion? Because it explains a lot, it makes Christianity seem rational.
0
al_94
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#25
Report 4 years ago
#25
(Original post by h3isenberg)
I know you're TSR's resident conspiracy theorist but you've tried to make Muslims the only 'victims' of a proposed ban on religious slaughter. What about Jews?

Oh wait, they're all Zionists :rolleyes:
Of course the White nationalists hate Jews the most and don't put words in my mouth I never said all Jews are Zionists. That is a ridiculous statement. If you're not going to be sensible then don't reply to my comments please.
0
awkwardshortguy
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#26
Report 4 years ago
#26
Arguments as to what is the most ethical form of slaughter aside, this is why we need more Atheists. Our laws should not be made to suit the whims of people who put credence in fairy tales. The humanness of the death of the tiniest fly matters more than the dictations of any fictional character. Except in our backwards world it would seem.
5
cake_lover
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#27
Report 4 years ago
#27
Why can't they just label which meat is halal? I mean Muslims only buy meat which has a halal label or it says its halal outside the store.

Do people really get fed halal meat as often as people claim without knowing? In which case why on earth am I being so selective in where I buy my meat.
0
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#28
Report 4 years ago
#28
(Original post by shiva300)
Lol how is it racist? Muslims and Jews come from all different races and countries so it's not at all. Some people happen to support animal rights, why would we advocate unnecessary animal cruelty?? Just because its "in the name of religion" does not make it okay.
People who claim that it is racist tend to be making the accusation that:


1] Many people opposed to religious slaughter are not genuinely that interested in animal welfare, and that their true motivation for being so vocal against it is simply to cause a hassle and make life difficult for those who eat religiously slaughtered meat.

2] The reason they want to make life difficult for those who eat religiously slaughtered meat is as follows: Although Muslims and Jews can in theory be from any race or country, the vast majority of people practising religious slaughter in the UK are Muslim, and the vast majority of those Muslims are of South Asian ethnic and cultural backgrounds. Since direct and blatant racism is no longer considered acceptable in our society, people are targeting the races and cultures that they are prejudiced against, or "foreignness" in general, by proxy. They disguise their racism using religion, so their sentiments aren't just immediately dismissed as being racist.


It's easy to believe that both of the above are true, because:

1] Animals often go through much worse experiences and slower deaths at the hands of humans than halal or kosher slaughter, and nowhere near as many people have ever complained about those (e.g. live prey being fed to carnivorous animals and mauled to death, fish dying of stress, suffocation or slow bleeding once hooked and on land, mice being caught in mouse traps and killed by a blunt force that crushes their spinal cords and internal organs). Religious slaughter, which is designed to immediately cut off the oxygen supply to the brain, renders the animal insensitive to pain significantly more quickly than any of the above.

2] Religious slaughter doesn't have nearly as much public opposition in areas such as the North East of the United States, where it is much more prevalently practised by Jews rather than Muslims, who tend to blend in more with the majority of the population in a racial and cultural sense. The areas where it is most strongly opposed are areas such as the UK, France, and Germany, where the vast majority of people who eat religiously slaughtered meat are South Asian, North African, and Turkish (respectively), and are very racially and culturally distinct from the Caucasian majority.
2
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#29
Report 4 years ago
#29
(Original post by awkwardshortguy)
Arguments as to what is the most ethical form of slaughter aside, this is why we need more Atheists. Our laws should not be made to suit the whims of people who put credence in fairy tales. The humanness of the death of the tiniest fly matters more than the dictations of any fictional character. Except in our backwards world it would seem.
But you're only saying that because you're an atheist.

This is like a Muslim saying "We need to make Shariah the main legal system in the UK because divine law is superior to man-made law", or "We should ban all religions except Islam, because those religions are false and Islam is true".
0
Carol R. Lawson
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#30
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#30
(Original post by Hopefulcici)
I don't particularly see what's wrong. Halal and non halal meat taste similar anyways. I don't think its fair for both Jews and Muslims to have their requirements taking away from them. If you don't want kosher or halal just don't buy it, also why all of a sudden are we getting hyped over how the animal is killed. Isn't actually killing the animal more so cruel than the method. If that's so we should ban all meat!!

Posted from TSR Mobile
SO agree with you How can it be fair to treat Halal/KOsher meat differently or distinguish between the same kind of meat sold in supermarkets just because of the way the animal is killed??
It's unacceptable IMO because it creates cultural divides in our multicultural society and is very anti-Muslim!

And I don't ''hate''animals despite all the hate-Halal responses to my post I'm only talking about the ways are meat is prepared + allowing ethnic cultures to continue with their own established + respected ways.

But sorry to have upset anyone + I admit animal rights are like WAY down my list of concerns in todays world we live in, but Halal + Kosher is legal + ritual slaughter is approved by the Government, so the ''antis'' I think should get over it + not campaign to ban it or be so anti accepted cultural food practises.
0
awkwardshortguy
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#31
Report 4 years ago
#31
(Original post by tazarooni89)
But you're only saying that because you're an atheist.

This is like a Muslim saying "We need to make Shariah the main legal system in the UK because divine law is superior to man-made law", or "We should ban all religions except Islam, because those religions are false and Islam is true".
Of course that's why I'm saying it. I'm not exactly going to promote the views of those I don't agree with now am I?
0
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#32
Report 4 years ago
#32
(Original post by awkwardshortguy)
Of course that's why I'm saying it. I'm not exactly going to promote the views of those I don't agree with now am I?
Well then if there's that sort of bias behind what you're saying (and you're admitting it), how is it even worth anything?

The only people your logic will convince are those who already agreed with you in the first place.
0
al_94
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#33
Report 4 years ago
#33
(Original post by tazarooni89)
People who claim that it is racist tend to be making the accusation that:


1] Many people opposed to religious slaughter are not genuinely that interested in animal welfare, and that their true motivation for being so vocal against it is simply to cause a hassle and make life difficult for those who eat religiously slaughtered meat.

2] The reason they want to make life difficult for those who eat religiously slaughtered meat is as follows: Although Muslims and Jews can in theory be from any race or country, the vast majority of people practising religious slaughter in the UK are Muslim, and the vast majority of those Muslims are of South Asian ethnic and cultural backgrounds. Since direct and blatant racism is no longer considered acceptable in our society, people are targeting the races and cultures that they are prejudiced against, or "foreignness" in general, by proxy.


It's easy to believe that both of the above are true, because:

1] Animals often go through much worse experiences and slower deaths at the hands of humans than halal or kosher slaughter, and nowhere near as many people have ever complained about those (e.g. live prey being fed to carnivorous animals and mauled to death, fish dying of stress, suffocation or slow bleeding once hooked and on land, mice being caught in mouse traps and killed by a blunt force that crushes their spinal cords and internal organs). Religious slaughter, which is designed to immediately cut off the oxygen supply to the brain, renders the animal insensitive to pain significantly more quickly than any of the above.

2] Religious slaughter doesn't have nearly as much public opposition in areas such as the North East of the United States, where it is much more prevalently practised by Jews rather than Muslims, who tend to blend in more with the majority of the population in a racial and cultural sense. The areas where it is most strongly opposed are areas such as the UK, France, and Germany, where the vast majority of people who eat religiously slaughtered meat are South Asian, North African, and Turkish (respectively), and are very racially and culturally distinct from the Caucasian majority.
I disagree. The white racists/nationalists don't care what colour you are they want to restore the country back to it's Anglo Saxon roots so it's not about targeting South Asians they want every non white out especially Jews in the case of White nationalists. The islamophobic people wan't Muslims out of the country and they believe by banning this slaughter it would result in Muslims leaving the UK. This has nothing to do with the hatred for South Asian community in particular.
0
Reformed
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#34
Report 4 years ago
#34
(Original post by tazarooni89)
People who claim that it is racist tend to be making the accusation that:


1] Many people opposed to religious slaughter are not genuinely that interested in animal welfare, and that their true motivation for being so vocal against it is simply to cause a hassle and make life difficult for those who eat religiously slaughtered meat.
and many are not, they simply dont like the idea of unecessary torture being overlooked
(Original post by tazarooni89)
2] The reason they want to make life difficult for those who eat religiously slaughtered meat is as follows: Although Muslims and Jews can in theory be from any race or country, the vast majority of people practising religious slaughter in the UK are Muslim, and the vast majority of those Muslims are of South Asian ethnic and cultural backgrounds. Since direct and blatant racism is no longer considered acceptable in our society, people are targeting the races and cultures that they are prejudiced against, or "foreignness" in general, by proxy.
but halal is not a 'south asian' cultural practice, it is islamic ( which is middle eastern export, nothing to do with asia ) - plus theres also almost as many asinas in the uk that are not muslim at all and dont practice this - so if someone has specifically an issue with asians, they wuldnt pick this matter.

(Original post by tazarooni89)
It's easy to believe that both of the above are true, because:

1] Animals often go through much worse experiences and slower deaths at the hands of humans than halal or kosher slaughter, and nowhere near as many people have ever complained about those (e.g. live prey being fed to carnivorous animals and mauled to death, fish dying of stress, suffocation or slow bleeding once hooked and on land, mice being caught in mouse traps and killed by a blunt force that crushes their spinal cords and internal organs). Religious slaughter, which is designed to immediately cut off the oxygen supply to the brain, renders the animal insensitive to pain significantly more quickly than any of the above.
that argument is redundant, doesnt mean to say that ppl should stand by to watch unecessary cruelty simply due to sentivtities around, lets face it is simply an ancient semetic ritual that predates both judaism and islam.

(Original post by tazarooni89)
2] Religious slaughter doesn't have nearly as much public opposition in areas such as the North East of the United States, where it is much more prevalently practised by Jews rather than Muslims, who tend to blend in more with the majority of the population in a racial and cultural sense. The areas where it is most strongly opposed are areas such as the UK, France, and Germany, where the vast majority of people who eat religiously slaughtered meat are South Asian, North African, and Turkish (respectively), and are very racially and culturally distinct from the Caucasian majority.
halal meat tends to be cheap, thats why they buy it probably. it is not an endorsement.
0
Birkenhead
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#35
Report 4 years ago
#35
(Original post by Carol R. Lawson)
SO agree with you How can it be fair to treat Halal/KOsher meat differently or distinguish between the same kind of meat sold in supermarkets just because of the way the animal is killed??
It's unacceptable IMO because it creates cultural divides in our multicultural society and is very anti-Muslim!

And I don't ''hate''animals despite all the hate-Halal responses to my post I'm only talking about the ways are meat is prepared + allowing ethnic cultures to continue with their own established + respected ways.

But sorry to have upset anyone + I admit animal rights are like WAY down my list of concerns in todays world we live in, but Halal + Kosher is legal + ritual slaughter is approved by the Government, so the ''antis'' I think should get over it + not campaign to ban it or be so anti accepted cultural food practises.
Once again you present a pathetic argument.

You say that it should be upheld because it is part of another culture. No. The fact that a practice is part of another culture doesn't mean it should necessarily be upheld in the interests of multiculturalism at any cost. If it causes unnecessary suffering to sentient creatures then it should not be allowed on this basis.

The fact that it is currently legal is as poor an argument as it would have been for defending slavery hundreds of years ago on the basis that it was then legal.

This applies to all practices which cause unnecessary suffering, halal, kosher and anything else. Your 'OMG YOU RACISTS!!!1111' argument smacks of desperation, but as other posters have said, when you aren't a Muslim yourself I'd be interested to know what your motivation is. Were you indoctrinated by the Muslim led schools of Bradford? Muslim boyfriend or foster family? What has led you to the blinkered, defensive, unusual viewpoint you have today? It would be nice if you could respond to some of the disagreeing opinions and not just those that concur with yours.
0
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#36
Report 4 years ago
#36
(Original post by al_94)
I disagree. The white racists/nationalists don't care what colour you are they want to restore the country back to it's Anglo Saxon roots so it's not about targeting South Asians they want every non white out especially Jews in the case of White nationalists. The islamophobic people wan't Muslims out of the country and they believe by banning this slaughter it would result in Muslims leaving the UK. This has nothing to do with the hatred for South Asian community in particular.
This is something that would be readily welcomed by the "white racists/nationalists" you speak of though, given that most Muslims in the UK are non-white.

In any case, if what you say is true, we can probably all drop the pretences about it primarily being an issue of animal welfare.
0
awkwardshortguy
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#37
Report 4 years ago
#37
(Original post by NekoNoKoi)
Guys please. She's a schoolgirl who, judging from the way she types and that bright pink font, is probably 14. There's really nothing more to say.


Also, as for the fictional character I believe in, I'd thank you for keeping your judgement to yourself.

/thread?
I guess I'll have to live without your thanks. He is fictitious. You are naive to believe that the solution to man's existential crisis lies conveniently in one particular book. One book out of the many other writings out there that all purport to have the answers to your questions.
0
King Boo
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#38
Report 4 years ago
#38
(Original post by Carol R. Lawson)
Happy to! xx I'm just opposing what I view as a racially + culturally insensitive campaign against Halal type religious slaughter rights.

As for the enforced labelling, I'm against that as well!!! It should just be treated exactly the same as any other sold meat/foods IMO. xx
Oh please, get down off your sanctimonious self righteous high horse and stop trying to police peoples opinions because you view it as 'culturally insensitive'.

I find it darn well culturally insensitive that Halal meat is existent in this country full stop. I am a staunch advocate of animal rights, (and before anyone jumps in, that does not necessarily mean I have to be a vegetarian.) and I find it absolutely ludicrous that you would put the peoples beliefs (subjective) above that of the welfare and pain of an animal (objective). I personally find that more than culturally insensitive, I find that absolutely, darn right disgusting.

Theres a reason that a large proportion of vets and animal rights charities oppose halal slaughter, because its inhumane. The throat is slit, without stunning (as otherwise its not technically halal) whilst the animal is still conscious. Before the apologists jump in and argue that the animal dies instantly, it does not. The animal fully is aware of what is going on, and all this nonsense about them not seeing the blade is simply not enforced in halal abattoirs in this country. The main nerve in the neck is generally not slit instantly, so the spinal cord is not instantly severed. Therefore, for sheep - it can take about 5 - 7 seconds to lose consciousness, and 22 - 40 seconds for adult cattle. In this time, the animal would be in significant pain and distress. This is the reason in the west, the accepted norm is to stun the animal beforehand.

In before people arguing that Halal meat in this country is all stunned, no - its not. The FSA did a report a few years back and found that at most, 84% of halal meat was stunned before slaughter, leaving 16%. Now multiply that up to the halal abattoirs across the country and you have a terrible figure.


To think that you find me opposing halal slaughter culturally insensitive I find a load of banal nonsense. I have no issue with muslims, or jews, or anyone else - as religion is something they are entitled to practice under a free democracy. However, when your beliefs result in a more than necessarily painful death of an animal, I think its well and truly overstepped the mark of being classed as culturally insensitive to oppose it.
3
Birkenhead
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#39
Report 4 years ago
#39
(Original post by King Boo)
Oh please, get down off your sanctimonious self righteous high horse and stop trying to police peoples opinions because you view it as 'culturally insensitive'.

I find it darn well culturally insensitive that Halal meat is existent in this country full stop. I am a staunch advocate of animal rights, (and before anyone jumps in, that does not necessarily mean I have to be a vegetarian.) and I find it absolutely ludicrous that you would put the peoples beliefs (subjective) above that of the welfare and pain of an animal (objective). I personally find that more than culturally insensitive, I find that absolutely, darn right disgusting.

Theres a reason that a large proportion of vets and animal rights charities oppose halal slaughter, because its inhumane. The throat is slit, without stunning (as otherwise its not technically halal) whilst the animal is still conscious. Before the apologists jump in and argue that the animal dies instantly, it does not. The animal fully is aware of what is going on, and all this nonsense about them not seeing the blade is simply not enforced in halal abattoirs in this country. The main nerve in the neck is generally not slit instantly, so the spinal cord is not instantly severed. Therefore, for sheep - it can take about 5 - 7 seconds to lose consciousness, and 22 - 40 seconds for adult cattle. In this time, the animal would be in significant pain and distress. This is the reason in the west, the accepted norm is to stun the animal beforehand.

In before people arguing that Halal meat in this country is all stunned, no - its not. The FSA did a report a few years back and found that at most, 84% of halal meat was stunned before slaughter, leaving 16%. Now multiply that up to the halal abattoirs across the country and you have a terrible figure.


To think that you find me opposing halal slaughter culturally insensitive I find a load of banal nonsense. I have no issue with muslims, or jews, or anyone else - as religion is something they are entitled to practice under a free democracy. However, when your beliefs result in a more than necessarily painful death of an animal, I think its well and truly overstepped the mark of being classed as culturally insensitive to oppose it.
Excellent post
0
awkwardshortguy
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#40
Report 4 years ago
#40
(Original post by tazarooni89)
Well then if there's that sort of bias behind what you're saying (and you're admitting it), how is it even worth anything?

The only people your logic will convince are those who already agreed with you in the first place.
So I should not think that I am right? Should I not believe the grass is green because I am biased to believe what my own eyes tell me?
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

what's your favourite season?

Summer (65)
32.34%
Spring (37)
18.41%
Autumn/Fall (50)
24.88%
Winter (38)
18.91%
I love them all equally (11)
5.47%

Watched Threads

View All