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

This discussion is closed.
awkwardshortguy
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#61
Report 4 years ago
#61
(Original post by tazarooni89)
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.
I wouldn't dream of trying to convince anyone. Ironically enough, it is easier to fit a camel through the eye of a needle than it is for a theist above 10 to enter the kingdom of common sense. It is a thing I have learned happens by itself or it does not happen. There is nothing I can say to them that they haven't already heard and dismissed, regrettably. All I did before was say exactly what I think.
0
al_94
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#62
Report 4 years ago
#62
(Original post by Birkenhead)
A ridiculous smear of the halal opposition. Hitler was a vegetarian. Does that mean all vegetarians want to exterminate the Jews?
I'm sorry but you're not understanding my point. You are putting forward the idea that it is only because halal causes more pain to animals that people want it banned but that is only one opinion. There are also people who have this idea that if you buy halal food you are supporting terrorism. There are White nationalists/ Nazis who believe it should be banned because it is done by Muslims and Jews who are enemies to the survival of the White race and therefore they believe by banning this slaughter it will lead to Muslims and Jews leaving the UK. I think you should actually stop being so narrow minded to think your view is shared by the whole ban halal campaign.
0
Copperknickers
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#63
Report 4 years ago
#63
(Original post by DorianGrayism)
No one cared when the Jews were doing it. All of a sudden when a few Halal places pop up, people care about the way animals die.
Nobody cared when Jews were doing it because:

1. People are only now in the last 20 years or so starting to care about animal rights.
2. Halal meat has recently begun to appear outside of Muslim-only settings, to the extent that we all eat it every week without knowing.
3. There are about 20 times as many Muslims in this country as Jews, so many more Halal slaughterhouses than kosher ones.
0
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#64
Report 4 years ago
#64
(Original post by Birkenhead)
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.
I think it's because people are more opposed often to halal meat than other forms of animal cruelty that it has come to be more publicised, not the other way round. The fact that it is more publicised indicates that people care more about it, and are more interested in reading and talking about it. Things don't just become "hot topic" for no reason. Organisations like PETA try to make the other animal cruelty issues a public talking point too, but to little avail.

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.
Now you're really clutching at straws. Given that in our culture we tend to be much kinder towards and more respectful of cats and dogs than cows and sheep, and given that most halal-slaughtered animals in the UK are chickens which are relatively small, do you genuinely think that it's the size of the animal that would cause there to be more overall opposition to halal slaughter than to other forms of animal cruelty? Is this primarily an argument between Muslims and Buddhists? This can be ruled out by just a bit of common sense.

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.
Well it's no secret that this is what a lot of people in this country would like. Though they would be exposed to ridicule if they said so explicitly, and even more so if they touched on the correlation between Islam and cultural "foreignness", Muslims and ethnic minorities.

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.
My opinion is not founded on religious belief. I have no personal issues with eating pre-stunned meat, nor with a law that would require all meat to be pre-stunned. Most halal meat in the UK is pre-stunned anyway.

This particular discussion is not about whether non-stunned Halal meat is good or bad, nor has it got anything to do with trying to invalidate opposition to it. It's about what people's true motivations are for opposing it, and whether or not there is an element of racism involved. Regardless of whether Halal meat is unnecessarily cruel or not, if many people are only making an issue of it because it's mostly foreigners who choose to eat it, then we have a problem. And so it's laughable that you'd say your argument is founded on "reason and evidence" while mine isn't. Have you provided any evidence that most opposition to Halal slaughter is out of a genuine animal welfare concern? If so, I must have missed it!

Instead you're having to clutch at straws by changing the subject back to "this is why Halal meat is bad" (see below) something which is something I was never even arguing against in the first place.

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.
In what way is it any more cruel than any other kind of slaughter, if the animal is unconscious?
1
DorianGrayism
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#65
Report 4 years ago
#65
(Original post by Copperknickers)
Nobody cared when Jews were doing it because:

1. People are only now in the last 20 years or so starting to care about animal rights.
2. Halal meat has recently begun to appear outside of Muslim-only settings, to the extent that we all eat it every week without knowing.
3. There are about 20 times as many Muslims in this country as Jews, so many more Halal slaughterhouses than kosher ones.
Again. All **** reasons.

No one cared till the last 5 years, not 20 years, simply because Muslims are doing it. Let's call a spade a spade.

If people are serious about Animal rights then they are vegetarians or at the very least , they source their meat from Organic or free range etc.
1
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#66
Report 4 years ago
#66
(Original post by awkwardshortguy)
I wouldn't dream of trying to convince anyone. Ironically enough, it is easier to fit a camel through the eye of a needle than it is for a theist above 10 to enter the kingdom of common sense. It is a thing I have learned happens by itself or it does not happen. There is nothing I can say to them that they haven't already heard and dismissed, regrettably. All I did before was say exactly what I think.
Sure, you can say whatever you think. But then, I can say what I think to. And I think it's of no more value than a Muslim saying "we should ban all religions other than Islam, because those are false religions and Islam is the true religion".

It's just a case of "I'm right because I'm right".
0
frankieboy
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#67
Report 4 years ago
#67
What I tend to find is people who are opposed to it paint this picture of it not as a swift clean cut to the throat with a perfectly sharp knife where the animal has no knowledge of what's giong on, but rather paint it as leatherface from the texas chainsaw massacre standing there with a blunt knife hacking away at the animal's throat while the animal screams in pain.

Those people are wrong. Halal is the former. If it ain't the former, it ain't Halal.

Also, it is hilarious that these people who have been eating meat slaughtered in rather a barbaric ''conventional'' way which often goes tits up for years are suddenly concerned about ''cruelty to animals''. If you're that concerned then stop eating meat you idiots.
0
Copperknickers
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#68
Report 4 years ago
#68
(Original post by DorianGrayism)
Again. All **** reasons.

No one cared till the last 5 years, not 20 years, simply because Muslims are doing it. Let's call a spade a spade.
Perhaps that's how it was exposed, but most of the people who are simply racist against Muslims are not really the bleeding-heart animal rights types.

If people are serious about Animal rights then they are vegetarians
That argument is so hackneyed and illogical I'm not going to even respond.

or at the very least , they source their meat from Organic or free range etc.
Yep. And organic and free range meat is LABELED AS SUCH!
0
awkwardshortguy
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#69
Report 4 years ago
#69
(Original post by tazarooni89)
Sure, you can say whatever you think. But then, I can say what I think to. And I think it's of no more value than a Muslim saying "we should ban all religions other than Islam, because those are false religions and Islam is the true religion".

It's just a case of "I'm right because I'm right".
I beg to differ that what I say is of no more value than your example. A Muslim cannot prove scientifically he is on the path to heaven, or even that there is a heaven. I however can at least tell you there is no scientific proof God exists so it would be unwise to believe he does, as it is the burden of whoever says he exists in the first place to prove just that. If one thinks otherwise, they could believe in anything whose non-existence is could not be proven e.g. The Flying Spaghetti Monster, The Easter Bunny, God
0
DorianGrayism
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#70
Report 4 years ago
#70
(Original post by Birkenhead)
Does the fact that the Nazis are generally reviled more than the Stalinists despite the latter killing far more people invalidate opposition to the Nazis? Do you even have any evidence that opposition to halal is greater to kosher? If this is the case could it be because there are far more Muslims in the country than Jews, and therefore halal is more common?

As I've said before, this is a pathetic argument.
This has nothing to do with the validity of the opposition.

The issue is that the motivation against Halal is attacking Muslims, not protecting Animals. That is the point.

The only reason why Kosher is being attacked is because of necessity. Otherwise, you might as well just come out and say that the motivation is anti-Islamism and not animal welfare.
0
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#71
Report 4 years ago
#71
(Original post by awkwardshortguy)
I beg to differ that what I say is of no more value than your example. A Muslim cannot prove scientifically he is on the path to heaven, or even that there is a heaven. I however can at least tell you there is no scientific proof God exists so it would be unwise to believe he does, as it is the burden of whoever says he exists in the first place to prove just that. If one thinks otherwise, they could believe in anything whose non-existence is could not be proven e.g. The Flying Spaghetti Monster, The Easter Bunny, God
There's a difference between "not believing that God does exist", and "believing that God does not exist". Here you say that, because there is no proof for God, it is unwise to believe that he exists - however previously you made the affirmative claim that he is fictitious. Without any evidence either way, be it for a flying spaghetti monster, an easter bunny, or a deity, we're just in the zone of "may or may not exist". The universe is very large, plenty of things that would sound strange to us can and do exist. Also, you can't even know how much proof there is of God's existence. Unless you've literally looked everywhere. Most Muslims would probably say that there is proof for God, and that you just haven't seen or recognised it.

Either way, the fact is that whether or not God exists is something that is in dispute. To justify a change to how laws are made, particularly in a democratic society, you need assumptions that are more universally agreed upon.
0
DorianGrayism
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#72
Report 4 years ago
#72
(Original post by Copperknickers)
Perhaps that's how it was exposed, but most of the people who are simply racist against Muslims are not really the bleeding-heart animal rights types.
Like most of the people who are against Halal meat.

(Original post by Copperknickers)
That argument is so hackneyed and illogical I'm not going to even respond.

Yep. And organic and free range meat is LABELED AS SUCH!
Right, but most people do not buy organic or free range meat or bother checking.

However, since most people are against Halal Meat, then it suggests that these people are really just against Islam as opposed to having an objection on Animal rights grounds.
0
awkwardshortguy
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#73
Report 4 years ago
#73
(Original post by tazarooni89)
There's a difference between "not believing that God does exist", and "believing that God does not exist". Here you say that, because there is no proof for God, it is unwise to believe that he exists - however previously you made the affirmative claim that he is fictitious. Without any evidence either way, be it for a flying spaghetti monster, an easter bunny, or a deity, we're just in the zone of "may or may not exist". The universe is very large, plenty of things that would sound strange to us can and do exist. Also, you can't even know how much proof there is of God's existence. Unless you've literally looked everywhere. Most Muslims would probably say that there is proof for God, and that you just haven't seen or recognised it.

Either way, the fact is that whether or not God exists is something that is in dispute. To justify a change to how laws are made, particularly in a democratic society, you need assumptions that are more universally agreed upon.
And yet you would not hesitate to call the Easter Bunny fictitious. If I am 99.99999999% certain that God is fictitious but not 100%, I am going to call him fictitious anyway. And I doubt there are any Muslims who have the gall to say they have scientific proof of God, which is the only real proof. Hearsay is not proof. Someone wrote a bestselling book about him is not proof.

What I can agree with is that to remove the influence of religious doctrine on law in a democratic society, the assumptions of atheists need to be more universally agreed upon - the country needs more atheists - which is what I trying to say in my first post.
0
frankieboy
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#74
Report 4 years ago
#74
(Original post by awkwardshortguy)
I beg to differ that what I say is of no more value than your example. A Muslim cannot prove scientifically he is on the path to heaven, or even that there is a heaven. I however can at least tell you there is no scientific proof God exists so it would be unwise to believe he does, as it is the burden of whoever says he exists in the first place to prove just that. If one thinks otherwise, they could believe in anything whose non-existence is could not be proven e.g. The Flying Spaghetti Monster, The Easter Bunny, God
The flying spaghetti monster was an option on a recent poll. I'm beginning to believe he exists.
0
suedonim
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#75
Report 4 years ago
#75
people are generally more aware of animal cruelty now than they were 20 years ago, it's called progress. I don't want halal meat forced on me so when it starts to become widespread I object.
0
frankieboy
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#76
Report 4 years ago
#76
(Original post by suedonim)
people are generally more aware of animal cruelty now than they were 20 years ago, it's called progress. I don't want halal meat forced on me so when it starts to become widespread I object.
But you're happy to eat conventionally slaughtered meat?
0
frankieboy
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#77
Report 4 years ago
#77
(Original post by DorianGrayism)
The issue is that the motivation against Halal is attacking Muslims, not protecting Animals.
Bang on. Obviously some of us are waking up to this fact sooner than others.
0
DeadGirlsDance
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#78
Report 4 years ago
#78
(Original post by Carol R. Lawson)
I'm not Muslim just an ordinary British schoolgirl, but if you wish to protect Halal+kosher methods of animal slaughter for the meat we all eat anyway, + oppose racially + culturally insensitive bigoted ppl who want to BAN it in the uk, please sign + share like mad!!! ) thank you xxx
PLEASE stop using pink font in every post you make :indiff:
0
slopeatope
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#79
Report 4 years ago
#79
(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.
wait bro are you sayin your not bias?
0
Hopefulcici
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#80
Report 4 years ago
#80
(Original post by Twinpeaks)
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.
Well yeah basically. We rear these animals just to be killed. Im a christian and I recently stop eating meat, not fully cause I need meat in my diet, but eventually I'll probably be a full vegetarian maybe even vegan. But the law 'Thou shall not kill' i know its primary for humans but after seeing a few videos and how animals are treated I decided maybe to try not eating meat.

But either way I don't think you should complain on kosher/halal meat. If anything, in Christianity it says we should eat meat as kosher. Also its not very fair these are people's personal dietary requirements.

Posted from TSR Mobile
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 (12)
30%
Spring (6)
15%
Autumn/Fall (10)
25%
Winter (8)
20%
I love them all equally (4)
10%

Watched Threads

View All