Should people that are against halal meat be charged for racism?

Why don't yall be vegetarian if you care about animals so much.

None of what us humans do to animals is natural, I agree. But who would eat them? We'd stop breeding them but it's not like they aren't capable of breeding them. A lot would die off because they are so used to us humans "taking care of them" and have since BC times and as you said later on, we feed them so it's unlikely they'll be very use in the wild, especially the ones that don't just eat grass.

Remember evolution? We have been through it, seen by those diagrams on t shirts of evolution. We used to be like the second diagram on the table, but we've evolved into being more civialised, killing with knives, guns and stunning instead of our teeth to kill our prey. Therefore we have evolved into having smaller canines, over time.

I will agree that plants are cheaper to produce in larger quantities. But if we got rid of meat we'd need a lot more plants as they haven't got as much iron and proteins that we need. We'd need more bean plants, which I'm told contains a lot of iron.

Essentially we could cut the middle Man. But should we? And we will? No.

There are many benefits to a non meat world I agree. Less obesity means less strain on the NHS, we have more land, more food that we feed to live stock can go to us (I read somewhere 97% of soya beans go to livestock), we'd be healthier, less resistant bacteria and less premature death. Green house gas imessions would drop by a 1/3, so that's a pretty good benefit too, especially with the threat of global warming.

The drawbacks are millions would be out of work and jobs, not just in the primary and secondary sector, but the tertiary and quaternary structure too. Never been to a food place which doesn't serve either meat or animal based products - even ice cream needs milk. Poor people will lose their most nutrious source of food for living on the streets (apparently. I mean I guess if they catch fish they can't eat them). And cultural identities of ourselves and 99% of everywhere would drop. Biodiversity would also suffer. It would cost a lot to change it as well and take up time to turn to Greenland.

And where do we draw the line on animal torture? What about medical advances e.g. Animal valves, antibodies, stem cells. Testing on animals would probably be out the window as that's torturing. Horse riding would also be a major no meaning more job loss. Animal fur, skin, blood and bones? Are we allowed pets? Or only certain types? What would happen to the clothing industry? It opens up a boat load of interesting but concerning questions.

I'm not sure about other animals but I'm pretty sure lambs and piglets get slaughtered at 6 months so we aren't natural no but do you think lions consider that? No they don't, they eat what they can get. Also a lot of people buy free range eggs and other products because they don't like what's called intensive farming, I personally always go free range. Some farms do intensive but some are normal, although they both die pretty much the same way. And regard my previous advantage on the green house gas.

I know it was hypothetical but I like to explore the idea and have healthy debates - to me it's not argumentative and it's good to explore angles from both ends - we've both learnt things and I'm sure everyone else reading has too!

Back to aliens, I agree with that 100% we should leave them be. We'd be ****ed.

I believe that life is more important but we don't just eat animals for taste. There are many other things we use animals for. Your toothpaste, your bike wheels, even the fireworks you watch every 5th of November. All contain some sort of animal who was alive or dead at one point.

If animals naturally die and we eat them, is that okay in a vegans book? That is a question I want to know the answer to.

I agree, a lot of these questions are difficult to answer and we may never know the answer unless they actually happen.

Of course many of the livestock would die, but for me personally, I would rather never be born than go through the agony say a mother cow or piglet has to go through (you've probably seen the videos I cant ever un-see them). maybe some could go to sanctuaries but most would have to be slaughtered and could be used for food one last time. There is a story of a beef farmer recently who realised what he was doing was immoral and so he looked out to vegan societies for help and funding and was able to diversify his farm into an animal sanctuary where he is now making money from visitors to the farm, there seem to be more and more farmers making this change and turning their farms into country parks with go karts, play parks and rescued animals.

I completely agree with your evolution point. We definitely evolved to hunt animals because they were an easier source of protein but now shouldn't we evolve again not to eat them because it goes against our morals and we don't need to eat them to survive? There are plenty food sources, beans, tofu, soya mince and other meat replacements which have just the same density of protein and are much easier and cheap to produce, they just don't have the same demand so have to be a bit more expensive. Dark leafy veggies, nuts, beans and wholemeal bread and grains are all iron rich and are some of the cheapest foods ever, people in third world countries survive off these types of food. A vegan diet can be the cheapest diet if you cut down on the luxuries.

There are many all vegan and vegetarian places who do every type of food substitute you could dream of (even scrambled "egg". I live in Edinburgh which is the second most vegan city in the country (London is the first and Glasgow a close third). But nowadays you can get a meal at almost any restaurant chain and every city will have one vegan/ veggie cafe at least.

Lions don't get the choice of what they eat, they are obligate carnivores which means they physically can't eat plants, they eat or die. Do we have the same choice? We go to the shop and pick up bits of dead animal wrapped in plastic - I bet the lions are envious!

I am against all forms of animal cruelty, cosmetic testing, horse riding, fishing... whatever causes an animal unnecessary harm. I am not sure where I stand on animal testing in medicine as I understand its benefits but 95 % of animal experiments fail on humans and don't effect them in the same way so it is sort of a waste. Also the animal can't consent to being tested on and suffers either way.

If we can get all of our nutrients from non-animal products doesn't that mean we do just eat them for taste? and if so would you call it animal cruelty since it isn't necessary?

I have a vegan toothpaste, I believe the correct definition of veganism is to emit animal products from your diet and lifestyle as much as is practically possible.

I would say for a vegan morally it is okay, even those lab meats which will be available soon are morally okay in most vegans eyes, however, personally, I wouldn't as being vegan has a lot of health benefits too!

Food chains wise, we were meant to eat meat. It's how it was and always has been. Yeah we could all eat plants and other stuff and survive, but guarantee a lot of people will become anemic, plant prices would shoot up, and whatvwould we do with all this falm animals when they eventually take up too much land. It wouldn't advantage us at all, or the animals we are killing.

We could cause less suffering for animals but it would mess up the ecosystem. If we look at a simpler food chain then ours, if all foxes were wiped out, rabbits would over populate, then run out of grass to eat, then die out too. We need an equal balance, like with every food chain. Also Pandas have limited their food chain to only bamboo, and look what's happening to them. As Mufusa describes in the Lion King, "It's the circle of life" where he's describing they eat the gazelles, die on the grass and gazelles eat the grass. Maybe we could eat less animals, but I don't know how that would work. For now, we are fine as we are. Vegans and vegetarians don't bother me though because meat and animal products are apparently in short supply anyway, or getting to that point, and also it's their life and belief.

Aliens aren't part of our food chain. They have their own on whatever planet they are from that they are comfortable with and are surviving on. We should just leave them to it, but if we do discover them, we will not (maybe we already have cause Area 51). They wouldn't want to eat us, or even kill us unless we started on them. We should leave them alone just like they should leave us. If we exist on another alien planet and we are the bottom of the food chain, unless we are prepared if they invade us, we're ****ed. Gazelles don't let their prey eat them, they put up a hard fight, but Cheetahs are stronger, and Cheetahs are faster, giving them the competitive advantage. So we'd do the same.

How is intensive farming in any way similar to natural food chains?


Posted from TSR Mobile

I read a really interesting article from a vegan who actually debunks the whole table picture you showed earlier, claiming, "Humans are omnivores, but can live on a completely vegan diet with the supplementation of B12 from fermentation." The key word here is can. We can do it, like the person who wrote this article does.

I'll leave a link to it down below but it states evolutionarily we are omnivores. Apart from B12 which is only available in meat or supplements you take every day, we could be 100% vegan.

Also this person states our highly intellectual brains (well arguable when considering people like Kim Kardarsian exists) is an adaptable feature to us catching our prey like a Lions teeth is to them.

The mistake people make is they think we're evolved from apes. We're not. We are great apes. We share a common ancestor with Chimpanzees.

If vegan diets were for everyone and everyone gave up meat, vegan diets would rise. Where would we put all the livestock that are taking up all the land we need to grow all of this? There is, apparently, a food shortage.

Nowadays all restaurants need to cater for vegetarians and vegans because money and profit. I once had a lady at work (burger place) swap out half the things in a vegetarian (stuff like goats cheese) burger to different things because she was vegan, which is fine, but then she says, "Sorry I just don't want to eat corpses." Her comment annoyed me because cheese is not part of a goats body, it's made from the goats milk. And you can be vegan and not eat things from animals, but it's not a corpse.

I'm against cosmetic testing, in my opinion we don't even need make up that much in the first place. But pets? What is your stance on that? We've had my cat for 15 years with the typical life span for cats being 12-18 years. I think the worst pain she's been in is having a vaccination against catching a disease. And we feed her, take care of her etc. My boyfriend has chickens but they sometimes cook the egg, and he still eats KFC and other chicken things even though he adores his chickens. What would a vegan think of naturally popping out eggs as an animal product?

Horse riding I'm in two minds - we treat them very well but grand national horses sometimes get treated badly. Animals have always been our transport from early early on. Fishing is the same as a bear reaching his claw in, spiking a fish and eating it so even though I don't eat fish, other people are welcome to. Nothing against that.

Medically, we need animal testing. Vaccines, drugs, surgeries, some people have pigs hearts, blood etc.

Clothes are also used. Can you have vegan clothing? I haven't researched that aspect yet.

So I knew vegan toothpaste would be a thing but you say practically possible? So biofuels, fireworks, bike wheels, plastic bags, white and brown sugar are not practical right? So what do vegans do? I mean it is possible to go without those things. Do you have Shampoo and conditioner too?

You could call it because we want to torture animals but we don't. We want to survive and be practical. And being vegan isn't practical for our whole society on the whole. They'd have to mass produce B12 vitamins.

Can I also point out the Yellowstone national park case? Where they introduced wolves and it caused so many benefits even if wolves are the prey. We create those benefits for biodiversity and the animals too.

So you wouldn't eat it yourself but it's okay?

What about chicken eggs?


https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/veganbiologist.com/2016/01/04/humans-are-not-herbivores/amp/

I agree we can eat meat, but just because we can doesn't mean we should, lions can metabolise cholesterol and we cannot. Plants take up way less space to grow and are much more energy dense as they are not "filtered" through another animal, I think I learnt this in biology last year.

That comment would have annoyed me too because it isn't really part of an animal, more a by product. Again pets are a difficult subject, I have two rescued rabbits and would only ever rescue an animal, I don't think I would rescue a cat either as they would have to be fed meat products but if they were going to be euthanized?... maybe.... I haven't really thought about it. Also now most pets wouldn't survive on their own, we have bred them so they literally depend on us for everything and I suppose we are not really exploiting them for food or products, as long as they are well cared for and are not showing poor mental health.

I guess having a few chickens and using their eggs if they don't eat them is morally acceptable, but not vegan. Vegans don't eat or use any animal or by product. It is just when farming chickens for eggs becomes an industry that everything seems to go bad for the hens, farmers are more worried about how much profit they are making and to make more profit you need to buy cheap food, small, dense spaces and deal with the animals as quickly as possible even if that means searing off their beaks so they can't bite one another.

It depends what you mean by vegan clothing, you can get ethically sourced cotton and other man made products like polyester (which is what most clothes and even most leather style shoes are made out of). There are companies which pay seamstresses a fair wage unlike some big companies *cough* *cough*. In my opinion vegan clothing is any clothing which doesn't contain silk, leather and other animal products.

Yeah there are some things, like medication, which is exempt from being practical. Fireworks? call me boring but I don't really like them . I have a vegan shampoo and conditioner which you can get from boots (its called kind natured) and its free from parabens and sulphates too! There are also brands like Yes To and a number of ones from superdrug, including superdrugs own brand.

You can get b12 from marmite (if you like it lol) and the soya, almond, coconut and other plant milks, cereal all come fortified with it, most humans are B12 deficient 40% of americans, roughly 10% of british, I haven't taken a B12 supplement before and I'm not deficient.

Were wolves native to Yellowstone? If they were how did they die out?

Since they're only against it because it relates to muslims.

I don't understand why that matters though since the animal dies regardless, as far as I know non halal factories have incredibly inhumane practices regardless. If you care so much about animal's feelings then why eat meat at all?

The question of how an animal should be slaughtered to avoid cruelty is a different one. It is true that when the blood flows from the throat of an animal it looks violent, but just because meat is now bought neatly and hygienically packaged on supermarket shelves does not mean the animal didn’t have to die? Non-Islamic slaughter methods dictate that the animal should be rendered unconscious before slaughter. This is usually achieved by stunning or electrocution. Is it less painful to shoot a bolt into a sheep’s brain or to ring a chicken’s neck than to slit its throat? To watch the procedure does not objectively tell us what the animal feels.
The scientific facts
A team at the university of Hannover in Germany examined the 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.
Appearances can deceive
Not all is what it seems, then. Those who want to outlaw Islamic slaughter, arguing for a humane method of killing animals for food, are actually more concerned about the feelings of people than those of the animals on whose behalf they appear to speak. The stunning method makes mass butchery easier and looks more palatable for the consumer who can deceive himself that the animal did not feel any pain when he goes to buy his cleanly wrapped parcel of meat from the supermarket. Islamic slaughter, on the other hand, does not try to deny that meat consumption means that animals have to die, but is designed to ensure that their loss of life is achieved with a minimum amount of pain.

They were eradicated by us in the 1920's and reintroduced in 1995, to see what would happen if a predator was reintroduced to an ecosystem. Here are the results:

•They controlled the growth of the elk population which increased biodiversity.
•Vegetation was no longer grazed away by the elks - we tried to control this ourselves, and well, we failed.
•Elks started avoiding certaining places of Yellowstone - making space for other animals to grow. This was particular in places they could be trapped like valleys and gorges.
•Tree heights doubled and doubled again in only 6 years.
•Birds moved back because more trees. Beavers also came back to eat trees.
•Damns built by beavers created habitats for fish, duck, otters, amphibians, etc.
•Wolves killed Kayotes, rising the number of mice and rabbits, meaning more Hawks, foxes, Badgers and Weasles, Ravens and Bald Eagles.
•Population of bears rose because of the corpses left by Wolves once they finished feasting meaning more food supply for them. Also more berries on the tree.
•Wolves changed how rivers behaved, meaning less erosion, more narrow rivers, and more pools were formed. They also did something beneficial with the soil.

They only introduced a small number of wolves and impacted not only the ecosystem but the physical geography.

I thought we would've killed them all, but I am completely for reintroduction of native animals, it balances the ecosystem again!

Since they're only against it because it relates to muslims.

It's similar with humans. Yes we could spare the animals we eat but if we don't eat them, who does?

Don't breed them and eat them until they're gone or haven't found a sanctuary?

But if we release them into the wild, like the elk are without wolves, they'll just over populate and cause unnecessary issues as seen in Yellowstone park.

We wouldnt release them into the wild, they probably wouldn't survive tbh

But what would we do? Keep livestock for fun? What we gonna do with all the dead ones? Eat them?

Yeah either keep them in sanctuaries or slaughter them for food, I don't think this is the main problem right now though