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

This discussion is closed.
Birkenhead
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#41
Report 4 years ago
#41
(Original post by tazarooni89)
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.
I think I speak for the vast majority here when I say that is the only reason we are opposing halal.
0
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#42
Report 4 years ago
#42
(Original post by Reformed)
and many are not, they simply dont like the idea of unecessary torture being overlooked
I think this would be in the minority of cases.

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.
I'd disagree. Though Islam originated in the Middle East, in the UK it is strongly associated with South Asia simply because that's where the majority of its adherents are from.

Also, I think that people who are racist against South Asians would be vocal on this matter. It is taboo to target South Asians directly, however they can target a large proportion of them via Islam. And if nothing else, by opposing religious slaughter they would at least be able to eliminate something that is seen as very foreign and non-European.

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.
I think you've missed the point of the argument. I'm not arguing that "this is why halal meat should be acceptable". I'm arguing that, if people were genuinely concerned about animal welfare, then they would be also be at least as concerned, if not more concerned, about these other practices that are even more cruel to animals. The fact that they are not demonstrates that, for the most part, animal cruelty is not the main reason why they oppose religious slaughter (even if that is their pretext for opposing it).

halal meat tends to be cheap, thats why they buy it probably. it is not an endorsement.
Many non-Muslims buy religiously slaughtered meat here as well. I'm not saying that buying it is an endorsement. I'm talking about the extent to which it is vocally opposed. In places like New York, it isn't opposed nearly as fiercely as it is here.
1
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#43
Report 4 years ago
#43
(Original post by Birkenhead)
I think I speak for the vast majority here when I say that is the only reason we are opposing halal.
And for reasons I've already given in a previous post, I'm not inclined to believe that. To me it seems more like, for the vast majority, the issue of animal welfare is just their pretext.

If they were genuinely concerned about animal welfare, then they would be just as actively vocal in opposing all the instances of even worse cruelty that animals experience at our hands, rather than just singling out religious slaughter.
0
NekoNoKoi
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#44
Report 4 years ago
#44
(Original post by awkwardshortguy)
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.
Your 'original' opinion is very highly valued by me and I assure you that I am definitely convinced by it, as you sound so sure of yourself. As an atheist, you've really shown me how accepting and open minded atheism can be
0
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#45
Report 4 years ago
#45
(Original post by awkwardshortguy)
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?
You can think whatever you like. But like I said, when it comes to convincing others, a biased line of reasoning isn't worth much at all.
0
awkwardshortguy
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#46
Report 4 years ago
#46
(Original post by NekoNoKoi)
Your 'original' opinion is very highly valued by me and I assure you that I am definitely convinced by it, as you sound so sure of yourself. As an atheist, you've really shown me how accepting and open minded atheism can be
My opinion is not meant to be original. It is meant to be right. I am not trying to set a trend. I am not very open minded to the possibility of there being a God because there is no scientific evidence. I am not accepting of certain religious beliefs because NEWS FLASH people kill each other because of them. I think that is as good a reason as any not to be accepting, don't you? Of course you don't. You probably think it's all part of God's plan now don't you?
0
Birkenhead
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#47
Report 4 years ago
#47
(Original post by tazarooni89)
And for reasons I've already given in a previous post, I'm not inclined to believe that. To me it seems more like, for the vast majority, the issue of animal welfare is just their pretext.
What reasons are these?

You seem to be grasping at straws to discredit the opposition to halal slaughter. I wonder why. Are you Muslim?
0
King Boo
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#48
Report 4 years ago
#48
I've just read some more of your responses, and you say

"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."

So - despite however barbaric halal slaughter is, you seem to want it to continue to allow ethnic cultures to continue with their own established and respected ways and practices. Well where do you draw the line with that logic?

In certain cultures its deemed appropriate to have forced marriages, in others FGM, other cultures condone stoning women and punishing them for being raped? In some cultures, homosexuals are killed simply for being gay, and in others apostates receive the death penalty?

All of these are well established in other ethnic cultures, but this doesn't make them right.

However, going on your logic of not being culturally insensitive and respecting barbaric practices in other cultures; simply as its their right to practice their own 'respected ways', we should just happily allow people to conduct all of these in the UK too? As all of my points represent well established practices in other cultures and religions well, yeah, according to your logic, thats fine isn't it - we dont want to be culturally insensitive!! And all the anti's should just stop complaining!

I pray that you're a troll, because if you aren't, you need to seriously reassess your opinions and the way you put them to people who can actually give you solid reasons why what you're speaking is absolute nonsense. Crying racist and islamophobe and going on and on about cultural divisions isn't gonna cut it I'm afraid.
1
Reformed
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#49
Report 4 years ago
#49
(Original post by tazarooni89)
I think this would be in the minority of cases.
on what basis ?

(Original post by tazarooni89)
I'd disagree. Though Islam originated in the Middle East, in the UK it is strongly associated with South Asia simply because that's where the majority of its adherents are from.

Also, I think that people who are racist against South Asians would be vocal on this matter. It is taboo to target South Asians directly, however they can target a large proportion of them via Islam. And if nothing else, by opposing religious slaughter they would at least be able to eliminate something that is seen as very foreign and non-European.
i would think majority, or if not close to half of uk asians are non-muslim, so again anyone anti-asian wouldnt simply pick an islamic ritual to critisise them on. and in fact islam has far more in common with european chritianity or judaism than any specifclally asian culture. and again fyi many of those against halal are also asians - for example sikhs are atcually not allowed to eat meat cruelly slaughtered and this includes halal ritual.

(Original post by tazarooni89)
I think you've missed the point of the argument. I'm not arguing that "this is why halal meat should be acceptable". I'm arguing that, if people were genuinely concerned about animal welfare, then they would be also be at least as concerned, if not more concerned, about these other practices that are even more cruel to animals. The fact that they are not demonstrates that, for the most part, animal cruelty is not the main reason why they oppose religious slaughter (even if that is their pretext for opposing it).
animal rights activists spend far more time on other causes than halal if you actually look what they do, they are simply turning the spotlight more on halal in uk now as its becomeing more widespread.


(Original post by tazarooni89)
Many non-Muslims buy religiously slaughtered meat here as well. I'm not saying that buying it is an endorsement. I'm talking about the extent to which it is vocally opposed. In places like New York, it isn't opposed nearly as fiercely as it is here.
yes and i said, halak is typically the cheapest meat - its often sold in low grade supermarket ranges and bought often by those on low incomes purely based on the price. often many of these pople dont fully understand or witness halal process (im sure many have been told lies that halal is a peaceful , calm induceing process for the animal)- but campaigns like this are bringing it into public domain more.
0
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#50
Report 4 years ago
#50
(Original post by Birkenhead)
What reasons are these?
From a previous post of mine:

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.

You seem to be grasping at straws to discredit the opposition to halal slaughter. I wonder why. Are you Muslim?
You seem to be grasping at straws oppose halal slaughter. I wonder why. Are you non-Muslim?
0
NekoNoKoi
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#51
Report 4 years ago
#51
(Original post by awkwardshortguy)
My opinion is not meant to be original. It is meant to be right. I am not trying to set a trend. I am not very open minded to the possibility of there being a God because there is no scientific evidence. I am not accepting of certain religious beliefs because NEWS FLASH people kill each other because of them. I think that is as good a reason as any not to be accepting, don't you? Of course you don't. You probably think it's all part of God's plan now don't you?
Okay.
My point: --->



Your understanding of it: <--- I.e. completely over your head.
You know fine well that my reply was sarcastic, stop being silly. Your opinion is right to the extent that it is your belief. I don't have proof that God exists and you know what? You don't have proof that he doesn't exist, however it seems to me like you've forgotten that minute little detail...:eek:
I honestly have no idea where you're getting the idea that I think that something is "all part of God's plan", or why you think you have the slightest idea as to what I believe, but okay :s
NEWS FLASH people kill each other for all kinds of stupid ****, lets not be accepting of anything.
Feel free to believe what you wish, my point has clearly missed you or you have deliberately ignored it because you are trolling. Actually, you probably are trolling and this conversation has nothing to do with the thread, so this will be my last reply.

Unless you post another hilarious assumption about me, e.g. I believe that God will send down a massive hurricane to kill off all the Muslims, atheists, '****' etc and then lead us pure Christians to salvation. Because I totally believe that, so I'll have to applaud you for being a psychic of some sort. Oh no wait sorry, you clearly reasoned it out with science.
0
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#52
Report 4 years ago
#52
(Original post by Reformed)
on what basis ?
I already explained this in my first post.

i would think majority, or if not close to half of uk asians are non-muslim, so again anyone anti-asian wouldnt simply pick an islamic ritual to critisise them on. and in fact islam has far more in common with european chritianity or judaism than any specifclally asian culture. and again fyi many of those against halal are also asians - for example sikhs are atcually not allowed to eat meat cruelly slaughtered and this includes halal ritual.
I don't think they're just picking one Islamic ritual to oppose. Many of these people are opposing Islam in any way they can think of, and this is just one of those ways. Regardless of what the history of Islam may be, the fact is that nowadays it has very strong foreign, non-white associations. (Especially since Muslims are much less likely than Hindus or Sikhs for example, to relax the strictness of their religion for the sake of cultural assimilation with the indigenous population.)

I'm not including Sikhs in this argument by the way. I don't claim that their opposition to Halal slaughter is associated with racism or nationalism.

animal rights activists spend far more time on other causes than halal if you actually look what they do, they are simply turning the spotlight more on halal in uk now as its becomeing more widespread.
Animal rights activists may spend more time on other causes. However most people opposed to halal slaughter are not animal rights activists, and do not spend any time on other animal welfare causes. For some reason, halal slaughter is the one animal rights issue they choose to focus on, even though in terms of cruelty. it is much less significant than other issues.

yes and i said, halak is typically the cheapest meat - its often sold in low grade supermarket ranges and bought often by those on low incomes purely based on the price. often many of these pople dont fully understand or witness halal process (im sure many have been told lies that halal is a peaceful , calm induceing process for the animal)- but campaigns like this are bringing it into public domain more.
This still doesn't address my point about the clear difference in vocal opposition between Halal meat in the UK and Kosher meat in the US. (I'm not aware that Kosher meat is particularly cheap in the US).
1
King Boo
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#53
Report 4 years ago
#53
(Original post by tazarooni89)
From a previous post of mine:

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.



You seem to be grasping at straws oppose halal slaughter. I wonder why. Are you non-Muslim?

The fish trade is a whole other kettle of fish (if you pardon the pun), my opinions of which i'll omit for the sake of this debate. Mice being killed in mice traps, generally speaking are a result of vermin. Its faster and quicker than poisoning the mice, and whilst I disagree with killing an animal as its an inconvenience, in some instances its a necessity - mice can spread disease and can contaminate food surfaces. So unfortunately, pests sometimes have to be killed. I find it ludicrous that you can argue a mouse trap is more cruel than halal slaughter. You seem to be well versed in how a mouse trap kills - yet you seem to be in the dark about the real life practices of halal? Yes, in an ideal world its designed to cut off oxygen supply to the brain by severing the nerves in the neck, however oxygen will still be in the tissues of the animal. Thus, not instantly rendering it stunned. As I said earlier, 5 - 7 seconds for a sheep to lose consciousness, and 22 - 40 for adult cattle.

Dont preach that halal is kinder to the animal than pre slaughter stunning. You're deluding yourself. If you want to argue the reasons why halal should be allowed, take up the argument that its backed by religious reasons, dont take the approach that its kinder to the animal because we both know its a load nonsense.
1
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#54
Report 4 years ago
#54
(Original post by King Boo)
The fish trade is a whole other kettle of fish (if you pardon the pun), my opinions of which i'll omit for the sake of this debate. Mice being killed in mice traps, generally speaking are a result of vermin. Its faster and quicker than poisoning the mice, and whilst I disagree with killing an animal as its an inconvenience, in some instances its a necessity - mice can spread disease and can contaminate food surfaces. So unfortunately, pests sometimes have to be killed. I find it ludicrous that you can argue a mouse trap is more cruel than halal slaughter. You seem to be well versed in how a mouse trap kills - yet you seem to be in the dark about the real life practices of halal? Yes, in an ideal world its designed to cut off oxygen supply to the brain by severing the nerves in the neck, however oxygen will still be in the tissues of the animal. Thus, not instantly rendering it stunned. As I said earlier, 5 - 7 seconds for a sheep to lose consciousness, and 22 - 40 for adult cattle.
And how long do you think it takes for live prey to be mauled to death by a carnivorous animal, for a large fish to bleed to death from the point at which it's pierced by a hook, or for a mouse to die as a result of blunt force? It's certainly much longer than a few seconds!


When fish are hooked on unmanned lines, many bleed to death in the water and some just stay there struggling for hours until they die. The ones that are caught in nets sometimes struggle so hard that they cut themselves against the net and bleed slowly that way. When they're brought to land from a great depth very quickly, the change in pressure can cause their eyes to pop out. If they're still alive when they're brought onto land, they can flap around suffocating and stressed for around 5-10 minutes. Sometimes, in order to subdue them, they're hit on the head with mallets (I've witnessed this personally), gutted while still fully conscious, or placed into ice containers to freeze to death.

And although mice are inconvenient vermin that do need to be caught, there are varieties of mouse-traps which are designed to capture them without injuring them. But they aren't the most popular type. The most common variety is the spring trap that breaks their backs or crushes their ribs, or makes them die of slow internal bleeding.

There's no doubt that both of these are more cruel than a few seconds of pain.
0
Reformed
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#55
Report 4 years ago
#55
(Original post by tazarooni89)
I already explained this in my first post.



I don't think they're just picking one Islamic ritual to oppose. Many of these people are opposing Islam in any way they can think of, and this is just one of those ways. Regardless of what the history of Islam may be, the fact is that nowadays it has very strong foreign, non-white associations. (Especially since Muslims are much less likely than Hindus or Sikhs for example, to relax the strictness of their religion for the sake of cultural assimilation with the indigenous population.)

I'm not including Sikhs in this argument by the way. I don't claim that their opposition to Halal slaughter is associated with racism or nationalism.
Well no becuase they actually refute your argument - becuase they are in fact being entirely strict in their adherence to refuse any halal meat- from what i understand its a fundamental part of their faith, but rationalised by a requirment to avoid unnecessary torture/cruelty which sits alongside the general animal welfare stance.

and we arnt talking about " relaxing strictness of religion for the sake of cultural assimilation with the indigenous population" anyway - it is about not doing or supporting acts that are inherently and unnecasarily cruel, so its a matter of doing whats right or good.

(Original post by tazarooni89)
Animal rights activists may spend more time on other causes. However most people opposed to halal slaughter are not animal rights activists, and do not spend any time on other animal welfare causes. For some reason, halal slaughter is the one animal rights issue they choose to focus on, even though in terms of cruelty. it is much less significant than other issues.
well we dont know who or what ppl are, they are quoting a animal welfare argument which is a valid one. u are jsut jumping to massive baseless conclusions for no real reason, unless you have some sort of chip on your shoulder.

your stance is theory, and baseless. by your logic, any muslim that opposses people being killed in palestine is simply 'racist' to non-muslims, becuase they dont make the same fuss about muslims killing christians or IS, or al queda etc. doesnt work.


(Original post by tazarooni89)

This still doesn't address my point about the clear difference in vocal opposition between Halal meat in the UK and Kosher meat in the US. (I'm not aware that Kosher meat is particularly cheap in the US).
i was referrin in the uk , where its generally dirt cheap comparatively. its often also regarded as the msot lax in regualtionn
apart from the creulty aspect. but as i said, there will always be people that will buy the cheapest option available, regardless of quality or morality etc.
0
Sabertooth
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#56
Report 4 years ago
#56
I think the kind of conditions we keep animals in when they're growing are disgustingly inhumane so complaining so much about how animals are killed seems a little short-sighted. That said, it should be the law that meat from halal and kosher slaughtered animals is clearly labeled everywhere it is sold - so people who don't want to eat meat from animals which died in a considerable amount of pain can make an informed decision.
0
al_94
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#57
Report 4 years ago
#57
The people I see that want halal banned are either white nationalists/elitists, racists, UKIP supporters or Islamophobes. In this video you can see a UKIP member calling for a boycott of halal.



In another video he goes on to defend the EDL and says they are not racist, facist or right-wing.

0
Copperknickers
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#58
Report 4 years ago
#58
Halal and kosher slaughter are ridiculous Mediaeval practices, but if they matter so much then by all means keep them. Just as long as you stun the animals first so you are in keeping with secular morals. Anything which effects non-religious people should be kept secular, but especially in this case, since it also effects animals.

I'm sorry but animals are more important than anyone's religious beliefs, on the basis that they actually exist and have the capacity to suffer, unlike God or Yahweh or Allah or Quetzalcoatl or the Walrus goddess of the Hudson Bay eskimos, or whoever else you think is telling you to torture animals (there is a medical name for that phenomenon when it occurs to one person rather than a billion).
0
Birkenhead
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#59
Report 4 years ago
#59
(Original post by tazarooni89)
From a previous post of mine:

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.
This is not a strong argument. Firstly, I don't think it is true that more people have complained about halal slaughter compared to other forms of poor animal treatment. Do you have any evidence that this is the case, or are you making it up?

Secondly, even if it were, it would not be relevant and is certainly not evidence that the motivation of opposition is out of anything other than concern to the animal. It could be because halal is more publicised. It could also be because the animals killed in halal are often much bigger, following the Buddhist approach that larger sentient creatures are even more deserving of respect.

What matters ultimately is the argument presented. The argument presented is that halal is not a kind way to end an animal's life. As has already been evidenced, about 20% of halal slaughter at least is non-stunned, and the BVA, RSPCA, HSA, FAWC and FVE all agree that this is totally unacceptable. Even when stunned, halal is still a totally unnecessarily cruel method of slaughter. If Muslims feels so strongly about their beliefs that they need to indulge in this method anyway, and it is eventually made illegal, they are free to leave the country. This does not amount to racism. It amounts to a prioritisation of what we know vs what some people believe - and what we know is that halal is barbaric and needlessly cruel. The religions of men should never be used as justification for suffering deliberately inflicted on other sentient creatures. You have made the utterly unfounded accusation, in an implicit form admittedly, because doing so explicitly would expose you to ridicule, that opposition to halal slaughter is more often than not motivated by racism. Engage with the substance of the argument rather than propagandising with no evidence at all that the proponents of your opposition are usually racists and therefore discredited in what they say.

You seem to be grasping at straws oppose halal slaughter. I wonder why. Are you non-Muslim?
I'm not grasping at straws. I've seen the videos and I've read the opinions of several independent charities and investigative organisations. My opinion is founded on reason and evidence. Your opinion is founded on religious belief, in complete contravention of the facts, and delivered in unfounded accusations of racism.
0
Birkenhead
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#60
Report 4 years ago
#60
(Original post by al_94)
The people I see that want halal banned are either white nationalists/elitists, racists, UKIP supporters or Islamophobes. In this video you can see a UKIP member calling for a boycott of halal.



In another video he goes on to defend the EDL and says they are not racist, facist or right-wing.

A ridiculous smear of the halal opposition. Hitler was a vegetarian. Does that mean all vegetarians want to exterminate the Jews?
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