Halal meat.

[Beso]

What do you think of it?

Not to sure what to make of this video, but its worth a watch just to see billy mitchell lose it at 4.25.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cwKBA6ovAy0

[Will.]

OMG

watching it now.

"Why are you offering meat up to Satan" :shame:

[user104658]

Jesus ****ing christ, her voice goes right through me.

[Kizzy]

Britain first contaminating a food prep area? :idc:

[user104658]

Britain first contaminating a food prep area? :idc:

It's OK, they're wiping out ISIS... with food poisoning...

[Firewire]

It's meat, just killed in a different way. People shouldn't put themselves on a high horse over halal meat if they are meat eaters since both involve murdering the animal.

I would eat non-halal and halal. Absolutely does not bother me.

[Will.]

Screaming at the woman

[Beso]

Britain first contaminating a food prep area? :idc:

I knew britain first would be the thing people focus on, what about halal meat, you must have an opinion kizzy.

[Will.]

http://ytimg.googleusercontent.com/vi/WScPmjQ_etk/hqdefault.jpg

[Beso]

Screaming at the woman

Shes a clown, but imo she was making good points about the barbaric way the animals are killed.

[GiRTh]

You'll find poor preparation in many slaughterhouses all over the world. I used to know a knacker man. Thats a bloke who kills horses when they are injured. He had some stories that I dont want to think about never mind share with you. This kind of practice is not confined to just Halal slaughter.

[Kizzy]

I knew britain first would be the thing people focus on, what about halal meat, you must have an opinion kizzy.

Yes I did, there was a thread a few months ago it was debated extensively on there.

[TomC]

I don't fundamentally agree with it. It's not the same as non-halal meat, as the animal's neck and artery is cut meaning it dies a slow and painful, as opposed to when animals are killed for non-halal meat, it is done with a bullet in the head which kills them instantly.

I don't think this cruelty is ok in the name of religion.

[TomC]

I might just add Britain First is the most ridiculous organization.

[Cal.]

I disagree with halal and non halal meat because I'M A ****ING VEGETARIAN. /carole

[user104658]

Shes a clown, but imo she was making good points about the barbaric way the animals are killed.

I don't necessarily agree with Halal, because I think saying prayers and sprinkling fairy dust or whatever before you kill something (or at any other time, for that matter) is beyond daft, however, the cruelty argument falls totally flat.

Watch a few of those abatoir videos Vegans love to spam all over facebook... there's no such thing as cruelty-free meat I'm afraid and anyone who wouldn't eat Halal meat because of the cruelty aspect... needs to go vegan and stop eating meat completely. If they believe that their non-Halal supermarket meat is "killed nicely", they are straight up deluding themselves.

Personally I always end up feeling hungry when I watch these Vegan propaganda videos though. Nom nom bacon :hee:.

There actually isn't a quicker or less cruel way to kill an animal than to properly sever the carotid artery. Messy, but quick and effective - they'll pass out in seconds and be dead not long after. The only real problem with it is when people don't know what they're doing and cut the windpipe instead of the artery... which will cause the animal to essentially drown in it's own blood.

[_Tom_]

I don't agree with halal meat because animals are not stunned before they have their throats slit. The animal then gasps and splutters, choking on its own blood until its last breath. I believe all animals must be slaughtered humanely.

Also a lot of supermarkets and restaurants have been selling halal meat to us (for their own benefit to save money) without labelling it as such.

[Beso]

I disagree with halal and non halal meat because I'M A ****ING VEGETARIAN. /carole

I saw an interesting thing this morning about beer, worcester sauce and a few other random items that contain meat and fish products. Bloody hard to be a vegetarian these days.

[T*]

I disagree with halal because I think the process is inhumane

[Jake.]

really don't care, I don't eat it/don't judge people who do

[LukeB]

Meats meat at the end of the day. I enjoy it so i dont have a issue with it

[TomC]

Just because you enjoy it either way doesn't mean you can't have an issue with cruel death

[Tom4784]

It's hypocritical to eat meat and then have a problem with how the animal was killed. Dead's dead. Something has been killed so you can eat, how it was killed is pointless.

As someone who eats meat I can't complain about how the animal is executed.

[Jason.]

It's hypocritical to eat meat and then have a problem with how the animal was killed. Dead's dead. Something has been killed so you can eat, how it was killed is pointless.

As someone who eats meat I can't complain about how the animal is executed.

:clap1:

I don't see why one method is considered cruel but the other isn't. Either way, the animal is still being killed for food regardless if it's shot in the head or having its throat slit.

[TomC]

Because of the pain and suffering. There's clearly a difference. These animals are bred to die, but they shouldn't need to suffer in the process.

[_Tom_]

Stunning the animal first surely is a better way than slitting its throat whilst it is fully conscious.

Halal meat is animal cruelty whichever way you look at it.

[Cherie]

really don't care, I don't eat it/don't judge people who do

How do you know you don't eat it? In London a lot of venues serve halal meat without advertising the fact

It's hypocritical to eat meat and then have a problem with how the animal was killed. Dead's dead. Something has been killed so you can eat, how it was killed is pointless.

As someone who eats meat I can't complain about how the animal is executed.

An animal having it's throat cut and bleeding to death and an animal that has been stunned before being killed ..big difference



Because of the pain and suffering. There's clearly a difference. These animals are bred to die, but they shouldn't need to suffer in the process.


:clap1:

[_Tom_]

It's hypocritical to eat meat and then have a problem with how the animal was killed. Dead's dead. Something has been killed so you can eat, how it was killed is pointless.

As someone who eats meat I can't complain about how the animal is executed.

Flawed logic. Just because it's being killed for my benefit doesn't mean I can't have a say in the way in which it's done. One way is more humane than the other. Slitting the animal's throat whilst fully conscious is barbaric.

If you consume something then you are allowed a say in the process. That's like saying it's hypocritical to have a say on environmental issues if you drive.

[Tom4784]

It's a meaningless difference. If the animal understood what was happening it wouldn't care how it was going to die, only that it was going to die.

If you cared that much about the animal's suffering then you'd be a vegetarian. People who eat meat don't get the right to act offended. It's hypocritical and vain.

[RichardG]

I don't agree with it

But not because Britain First told me not to :nono:

[joeysteele]

I really very rarely eat meat.

I am not vegetarian but may as well be as I could easily live without eating meat,I only have the smallest amount whenever do when with family.

Given the choice I would rather the animal was stunned first however.

[Cherie]

It's a meaningless difference. If the animal understood what was happening it wouldn't care how it was going to die, only that it was going to die.

If you cared that much about the animal's suffering then you'd be a vegetarian. People who eat meat don't get the right to act offended. It's hypocritical and vain.

It's nothing to do with understanding, it's about the pain an animal endures unnecessarily.

[MTVN]

Have often gone for the Halal option at canteens or dinners if I like the sound of the dish and I would never have any qualms about eating halal. Then again I am generally very indifferent to these matters.

[Jamie89]

It's a meaningless difference. If the animal understood what was happening it wouldn't care how it was going to die, only that it was going to die.

If you cared that much about the animal's suffering then you'd be a vegetarian. People who eat meat don't get the right to act offended. It's hypocritical and vain.

Yes it's going to die anyway but there's two choices, 1. death without suffering, and 2. death with lots of suffering. I disagree that someone has to be a vegetarian (or that they're being hypocritical or vain) to have a preference for the 'no suffering' option. For me, I'm not a vegetarian so yes I want the animal to be killed, but why does that mean I can't care about it if it suffers during the process?

[Tom4784]

It's nothing to do with understanding, it's about the pain an animal endures unnecessarily.

It's silly to cry about how the animal is killed when you're chowing down on a lamb chop. The animal didn't HAVE to be killed, in fact we don't ever have to kill another animal for food since there's substitutes that can be eaten instead and supplements that can be taken. We don't eat animals because we must, we eat them because we can and because we want to.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you truly cared for the animal's welfare then you'd be a vegetarian since the act of eating meat is indulgent and not needed for survival. You can't be a meat eater and then complain about how the meat comes to be. It's shallow and serves nothing but your own vanity.

[Kizzy]

What about when 'stunned' cattle regain consciousness whist trussed upside down waiting in line for the bolt gun?

[Cherie]

It's silly to cry about how the animal is killed when you're chowing down on a lamb chop. The animal didn't HAVE to be killed, in fact we don't ever have to kill another animal for food since there's substitutes that can be eaten instead and supplements that can be taken. We don't eat animals because we must, we eat them because we can and because we want to.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you truly cared for the animal's welfare then you'd be a vegetarian since the act of eating meat is indulgent and not needed for survival. You can't be a meat eater and then complain about how the meat comes to be. It's shallow and serves nothing but your own vanity.

It's even more silly to compare a humane death and one where an animal is bled to death as being equal and using vanity as an argument

[joeysteele]

It's silly to cry about how the animal is killed when you're chowing down on a lamb chop. The animal didn't HAVE to be killed, in fact we don't ever have to kill another animal for food since there's substitutes that can be eaten instead and supplements that can be taken. We don't eat animals because we must, we eat them because we can and because we want to.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you truly cared for the animal's welfare then you'd be a vegetarian since the act of eating meat is indulgent and not needed for survival. You can't be a meat eater and then complain about how the meat comes to be. It's shallow and serves nothing but your own vanity.




I have to agree with every word there.

[Cherie]

[QUOTE=Kizzy;8635747]What about when 'stunned' cattle regain consciousness whist trussed upside down waiting in line for the bolt gun?[/QUOTE

Who is saying this isn't awful?

[RichardG]

Humans are animals and animals eat meat, there's nothing wrong with favouring a less painful method of killing

[Cherie]

Humans are animals and animals eat meat, there's nothing wrong with favouring a less painful method of killing

Most animals we eat are herbivores :worry:

[RichardG]

Most animals we eat are herbivores :worry:

Does this make me really vain then :shame:

[Cherie]

Does this make me really vain then :worry:

Not if you stop looking in the mirror :hehe:

[Tom4784]

It's even more silly to compare a humane death and one where an animal is bled to death as being equal and using vanity as an argument

Not really, complaining about how animals are killed when you're happy enough to gorge on the meat is hypocritical. Death is Death, the animal wouldn't thank you for killing it in a way you'd deem acceptable. It's a vain way of making yourself feel less guilty for what is an indulgent act.

I eat meat, I love it but I'm not going to bleat on about how one way of killing a defenseless animal is better than another because at the end of the day the end result is the same and the only difference is that you're desperately trying to justify the method you think is humane.

[Cal.]

I saw an interesting thing this morning about beer, worcester sauce and a few other random items that contain meat and fish products. Bloody hard to be a vegetarian these days.

Are you joking me at beer

They should put that on the label

[bots]

If one extends the argument and say, the NHS is under pressure, so lets remove the pain medication for the terminally ill, they are going to die anyway, it makes no difference.

Lets see how long that argument lasts.

Of course we should be humane. We need meat and killing humanely is a no thought option.

[Tom4784]

If one extends the argument and say, the NHS is under pressure, so lets remove the pain medication for the terminally ill, they are going to die anyway, it makes no difference.

Lets see how long that argument lasts.

Of course we should be humane. We need meat and killing humanely is a no thought option.

That's so silly that it's not worth even considering as a counter argument.

You do not need to eat meat, it's a choice to eat meat, you will not die without it. You can thrive by eating substitutes. To compare it to the act of removing pain medicine from dying people is the definition of a desperate strawman argument.

To think that the animals do not suffer in slaughter houses, Halal or otherwise is FOOLISH. To think that one method is better for the animal than another is ridiculous, you are happy at the thought of ending an animal's life so you can have a nice bit of meat for dinner. The method of slaughter doesn't matter to the animal, it still dies in an awful place for selfish reasons.

Honestly, it's so wishy washy and half arsed how meat eaters complain about this, they want to have their cake and eat it too. Be a vegetarian if it bothers you that much, I will never take a meat eater seriously when they complain about Halal meat.

Either stop being self righteous and own the fact that eating meat is a needless and indulgent act or actually go the distance and give up meat. You can't do both without looking like a hypocrite.

[Beso]

It's a meaningless difference. If the animal understood what was happening it wouldn't care how it was going to die, only that it was going to die.


Come on thats just stupid, thats like saying a hostage doesn't care how they are killed when i,m sure all would prefer a quick bullet to the head rather than a videod beheading

[Jordan.]

Not really, complaining about how animals are killed when you're happy enough to gorge on the meat is hypocritical. Death is Death, the animal wouldn't thank you for killing it in a way you'd deem acceptable. It's a vain way of making yourself feel less guilty for what is an indulgent act.

I eat meat, I love it but I'm not going to bleat on about how one way of killing a defenseless animal is better than another because at the end of the day the end result is the same and the only difference is that you're desperately trying to justify the method you think is humane.

If you were in the animals position I think we know which death you would choose. One option is obviously far more preferable no matter how politically correct you're trying to be.

[bots]

Are you joking me at beer

They should put that on the label

The majority of agents used to remove the sediment and make the drink clear are made from animal products. This applies to wine, beer or whatever.

[Beso]

What about when 'stunned' cattle regain consciousness whist trussed upside down waiting in line for the bolt gun?

I think there will be guidelines and laws that are broken if that happens.

[T*]

Are you joking me at beer

They should put that on the label

Not all of them DW

[Beso]

Are you joking me at beer

They should put that on the label

No joke, something to do with fish.

[Kizzy]

What about when 'stunned' cattle regain consciousness whist trussed upside down waiting in line for the bolt gun?

Who is saying this isn't awful?

Well there's no Britain first expose on that practice :/

[user104658]

I believe all animals must be slaughtered humanely.

Again... there is no such thing, and if you have a genuine problem with animals suffering in order for us to enjoy their delicious, delicious meat... then your only real option is to go vegan.

Uncomfortable truth: Animals suffer when they are being slaughtered. There is no painless / humane method. It doesn't happen.

[Tom4784]

If you were in the animals position I think we know which death you would choose. One option is obviously far more preferable no matter how politically correct you're trying to be.

You're missing the point, as per usual.

I wouldn't want either death because the method is irrelevant, it's still death either way. It's still butchering an animal for food that we do not even need. I'm not defending either method of execution, I'm saying that, in the end, neither is preferable to the animal, neither is painless and neither of them are REALLY humane. People just delude themselves into thinking that there's a humane way of doing it.

As a meat eater I don't see the difference between the two methods, it's only the bleeding hearts that are deluding themselves into thinking they are good people for preferring the stunning method. Eating meat is selfish and people do it because they like it, not because they need it. I'm not deluding myself into thinking that there's a good painless way to kill animals because there isn't.

It's funny that you're saying I'm being politically correct, surely the PC view of things is the view that you have in which you've fooled yourself into thinking that one method is better than another.

[Black Dagger]

Delish.

[Jordan.]

You're missing the point, as per usual.

I wouldn't want either death because the method is irrelevant, it's still death either way. It's still butchering an animal for food that we do not even need. I'm not defending either method of execution, I'm saying that, in the end, neither is preferable to the animal, neither is painless and neither of them are REALLY humane. People just delude themselves into thinking that there's a humane way of doing it.

As a meat eater I don't see the difference between the two methods, it's only the bleeding hearts that are deluding themselves into thinking they are good people for preferring the stunning method. Eating meat is selfish and people do it because they like it, not because they need it. I'm not deluding myself into thinking that there's a good painless way to kill animals because there isn't.

It's funny that you're saying I'm being politically correct, surely the PC view of things is the view that you have in which you've fooled yourself into thinking that one method is better than another.

More like you're the one trying to be edgy and go against the grain as usual. Yes no animal NEEDS to die for food however it is human nature to eat meat and therefore if a method is in place where that can happen whilst causing as little suffering as possible to the animal that is only a good thing. I just find your view on the situation as negative and narrow minded and you need to get off your high horse judging people for trying to show some empathy.

[T*]

People can be hypocrites because they're still eating meat yes- but stunning is still the more humane option out of the two... There's no real reason to go around tutting at people for having that opinion or try and convince them otherwise because lbr it's not going to achieve anything...

[Alf]

Mmmmmmmmmm! Meat!

[Ninastar]

I can totally understand why people are against Halal meat, but I can also see why someone would think it's hypocritical. TBH, I wouldn't eat Halal meat if I had the choice, but I don't judge others who do. You believe what you believe and the only thing I don't agree with is people telling other people how to live their lives.

[Tom4784]

More like you're the one trying to be edgy and go against the grain as usual. Yes no animal NEEDS to die for food however it is human nature to eat meat and therefore if a method is in place where that can happen whilst causing as little suffering as possible to the animal that is only a good thing. I just find your view on the situation as negative and narrow minded and you need to get off your high horse judging people for trying to show some empathy.

If you're going to try to drag me at least try something that's applicable since that failure of an attempt was embarrassing.

Again, you've missed the point. I don't give a **** about either method of slaughter, my issue is with the people who look down on one method while championing another equally barbaric method. The point is that slaughter is inhumane no matter HOW you present it. You are still slitting a creature's throat and hanging it upside down to drain the blood. One method just involves delivering an electric shock to the animal's brain beforehand.

Slaughter houses are not a humane way of killing animals. You can dress it up all you want with faux concern for the animals but that's not going to change the facts.

If you cared about these animals then you'd take a stand but you're too happy eating burgers so I'm not gonna take your little soapbox routine seriously. I like burgers too but I'm not gonna take the moral highground over how my meat is slaughtered and I am not fooling myself into thinking there's a humane way to do it. The animals don't have a preference, they'd prefer to live.

[Alf]

I can totally understand why people are against Halal meat, but I can also see why someone would think it's hypocritical. TBH, I wouldn't eat Halal meat if I had the choice, but I don't judge others who do. You believe what you believe and the only thing I don't agree with is people telling other people how to live their lives.You just reminded me of a song I haven't heard for ages.

Great album is London 0 Hull 4.


fudOagMeVKk


Mmmmmmmm Meat

[Jordan.]

If you're going to try to drag me at least try something that's applicable since that failure of an attempt was embarrassing.

Again, you've missed the point. I don't give a **** about either method of slaughter, my issue is with the people who look down on one method while championing another equally barbaric method. The point is that slaughter is inhumane no matter HOW you present it. You are still slitting a creature's throat and hanging it upside down to drain the blood. One method just involves delivering an electric shock to the animal's brain beforehand.

Slaughter houses are not a humane way of killing animals. You can dress it up all you want with faux concern for the animals but that's not going to change the facts.

If you cared about these animals then you'd take a stand but you're too happy eating burgers so I'm not gonna take your little soapbox routine seriously. I like burgers too but I'm not gonna take the moral highground over how my meat is slaughtered and I am not fooling myself into thinking there's a humane way to do it. The animals don't have a preference, they'd prefer to live.

Okay well to me your whole logic and argument is wrong because they are NOT equally as inhumane or barbaric. It's hilarious you think anyone else is trying to take the moral highground whilst looking down your nose.

And there's pretty much nothing else to say on the matter without going in circles.

[Rob!]

It's a meaningless difference. If the animal understood what was happening it wouldn't care how it was going to die, only that it was going to die.

If you cared that much about the animal's suffering then you'd be a vegetarian. People who eat meat don't get the right to act offended. It's hypocritical and vain.

I'm pretty sure if the animal understood it, it would choose to go the least painful way possible.

Prolonging the agony of an animals death purely in the name of religion is abhorrent. Simple as that.

[DemolitionRed]

I'm in two minds here. I ran a livery yard for some years and I had the unfortunate job of standing with some clients horses that needed to be euthanized. This could be done by lethal injection and the other is by a humane killer (dead bolt pistol). The second is very traumatic for the person standing with the horse but its quick, its clean and on the three occasions I was witness to it, the horse didn't show any fear or have any notion of what was about to happen.

The problem I have with slaughter houses is not the method of death but the smell of adrenalin those animals must smell when entering. That animals, especially chickens, can see what's happening to the line in front of them. Someone who once worked in the 'killing room' of a slaughter house told me, as the animal enters that room it will always defacate from fear.

But then I look at some countries in the far east who skin snakes alive and throw cats alive into boiling pots of water whilst other cats in crowded cages watch on. There are some heinous methods of slaughter and there are some kinder methods of slaughter, just as there are some kinder methods of animal husbandry and some horrific methods such as veal crates, battery hens and foie gras geese.

[Cherie]

Not really, complaining about how animals are killed when you're happy enough to gorge on the meat is hypocritical. Death is Death, the animal wouldn't thank you for killing it in a way you'd deem acceptable. It's a vain way of making yourself feel less guilty for what is an indulgent act.

I eat meat, I love it but I'm not going to bleat on about how one way of killing a defenseless animal is better than another because at the end of the day the end result is the same and the only difference is that you're desperately trying to justify the method you think is humane.

Nope you are missing the point, death is not death, for instance putting a terminally ill pet to sleep in a vets or leaving it to die in pain results in the same end but not in the suffering endured by the animal, you can argue all you like but you cannot no matter how hard you try make these two endings comparable.

[Cherie]

Well there's no Britain first expose on that practice :/

Because it isn't common practice? This isn't a Muslim issue as some people are trying to intimate, it's an animal rights issue same as companies that transport animals in inhumane conditions have been exposed, it's unfortunate that the video which I haven't watched is by Britain First I guess that doesn't sit well with some who have PC agendas :/

[Denver]

How many of you eat Kebabs? Do you know they are all Halal

[Kazanne]

It's meat, just killed in a different way. People shouldn't put themselves on a high horse over halal meat if they are meat eaters since both involve murdering the animal.

I would eat non-halal and halal. Absolutely does not bother me.

Better still Firewire ,don't eat it at all,better for your health too:hee:

[Kazanne]

Nope you are missing the point, death is not death, for instance putting a terminally ill pet to sleep in a vets or leaving it to die in pain results in the same end but not in the suffering endured by the animal, you can argue all you like but you cannot no matter how hard you try make these two endings comparable.

:clap1::clap1:

[Kazanne]

If one extends the argument and say, the NHS is under pressure, so lets remove the pain medication for the terminally ill, they are going to die anyway, it makes no difference.

Lets see how long that argument lasts.

Of course we should be humane. We need meat and killing humanely is a no thought option.

EXACTLY,right it's all well and good deciding if an animal suffers or not as we don't feel it,but put that scenario to humans and that thought soon changes,selfish humans deciding anything can suffer but us.

[Rob!]

How many of you eat Kebabs? Do you know they are all Halal

I'd be amazed if what is in a kebab even constitutes as meat.

[Kazanne]

I wonder how many people would eat meat if they had to kill it themselves.While it's packaged in neat little trays I am sure some people don't even equate it was once a living ,breathing animal.

[smudgie]

I not not want any meat ending up on my plate to have been killed humanely, I want it to have had a happy life as well, however short that life has been.
Nothing at all wrong with that, doesn't make me a hypocrite, just means I care.
Let's face it, if it wasn't for meat eaters then most of these animals wouldn't have a life to start with.:shrug:

[Kizzy]

Because it isn't common practice? This isn't a Muslim issue as some people are trying to intimate, it's an animal rights issue same as companies that transport animals in inhumane conditions have been exposed, it's unfortunate that the video which I haven't watched is by Britain First I guess that doesn't sit well with some who have PC agendas :/

Are you accusing me of something here Cherie, do you think for one second Britain first would bother with the expose into halal slaughter if it they weren't approaching it from an incendiary angle?
Muslims aren't the only people to kill animals in this way.
In my opinion the alternative is as inhumane, there is no happy way animals are killed for food.

[Cherie]

Are you accusing me of something here Cherie, do you think for one second Britain first would bother with the expose into halal slaughter if it they weren't approaching it from an incendiary angle?
Muslims aren't the only people to kill animals in this way.
In my opinion the alternative is as inhumane, there is no happy way animals are killed for food.

I beg to differ! The thread is a discussion on inhumane practices on animal slaughter, yet I get the distinct impression that anyone who disagrees with the practice is being handed a Britain First T shirt. I didn't bring BF or Muslims or judging into the thread.

[Jamie89]

Are you accusing me of something here Cherie, do you think for one second Britain first would bother with the expose into halal slaughter if it they weren't approaching it from an incendiary angle?
Muslims aren't the only people to kill animals in this way.
In my opinion the alternative is as inhumane, there is no happy way animals are killed for food.

Noone is suggesting there is a 'happy' alternative, but surely it's just common sense that less suffering is better than more suffering?

It's really just as simple as that for me. I can't even at some of the assumptions on here as to people's motives for having that opinion, the judgments and thinly veiled insults flying around on this thread, it's all completely ridiculous. (That's not at you btw Kizzy, just my general impression of reading the thread.)

[Kizzy]

I beg to differ! The thread is a discussion on inhumane practices on animal slaughter, yet I get the distinct impression that anyone who disagrees with the practice is being handed a Britain First T shirt. I didn't bring BF or Muslims or judging into the thread.

You mentioned Muslims, I didn't :laugh:
I don't feel either are humane, I just made that point.
Don't get that impression on my account, I'm not accusing anyone here of anything :/
I do believe BF have an agenda however, they could walk into any abattoir and see inhumane practice.

[Cherie]

You mentioned Muslims, I didn't :laugh:
I don't feel either are inhumane, I just made that point.
Don't get that impression on my account, I'm not accusing anyone here of anything :/
I do believe BF have an agenda however, they could walk into any abattoir and see inhumane practice.

Yeah of course they have an agenda, that doesn't take away from the fact that slitting an animals throat and letting it bleed out, or turfing live goats off high buildings in the name of festivals whatever religion is a disgusting practice.

[Tom4784]

Nope you are missing the point, death is not death, for instance putting a terminally ill pet to sleep in a vets or leaving it to die in pain results in the same end but not in the suffering endured by the animal, you can argue all you like but you cannot no matter how hard you try make these two endings comparable.

Again with the strawman arguments, why are you comparing euthanising a pet to butchering livestock? it's a silly comparison that has no bearing on the discussion.

Slaughter Houses are not humane no matter the method of execution, the animal knows it's coming and it dies scared and traumatised regardless whether you stun it first or not.

[Kizzy]

Yeah of course they have an agenda, that doesn't take away from the fact that slitting an animals throat and letting it bleed out, or turfing live goats off high buildings in the name of festivals whatever religion is a disgusting practice.

I haven't seen any goats being launched but I agree that's terrible.

[Kizzy]

As with basically everything Britain First does, a quick fact check is in order:

Halal slaughter isn't more or less "barbaric" than other methods of killing animals such as kashrut in Judaism, which forbids the stunning of animals before slaughter

The interpretation and practice of halal slaughter varies widely throughout Islam

A huge amount of meat in the UK is halal compliant anyway, so it's this one slaughterhouse has not been "exposed"

As for the charge of cruelty, the RSPCA estimates that 88 per cent of animals killed for halal meat are stunned first

Last but not least, Fransen might want to reevaluate her claim that her grandfather didn't fight for "you people to turn [this country] into little Pakistan."

An estimated 400,000 Muslim soldiers fought for Britain in WWI - most from present-day India and Pakistan.

http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/britain-first-just-tried-to-invade-a-halal-slaughterhouse-it-went-badly--ZJx_7ZbKWMb

[Cherie]

Again with the strawman arguments, why are you comparing euthanising a pet to butchering livestock? it's a silly comparison that has no bearing on the discussion.

Slaughter Houses are not humane no matter the method of execution, the animal knows it's coming and it dies scared and traumatised regardless whether you stun it first or not.


I was responding to your silly comparison that death is death however it happens, ignore that point all you like you know its not true


I haven't seen any goats being launched but I agree that's terrible.

It happens at some barbaric festival in Spain

[Cherie]

As for the charge of cruelty, the RSPCA estimates that 88 per cent of animals killed for halal meat are stunned first

[/url]


Stunning is equal to slitting their throat allegedly, so I don't know why this would be used as a defence if throat slitting is all fine and dandy.

[Kizzy]

That is the guideline for supposed humane slaughter... stunning.
As I said earlier as long as it's quick and they don't regain consciousness, in which case stunning is the least humane of the two methods imo.

[Tom4784]

I was responding to your silly comparison that death is death however it happens, ignore that point all you like you know its not true




It happens at some barbaric festival in Spain

'Death is Death' is not a comparison dear, it's a statement. It might be a good idea if you learn the difference between the two.

Slaughter houses are not humane, there's no debate about it. Delude yourself into thinking they can be all you like but don't pretend that one method of slaughter is better than another. The clue's in the name dear, SLAUGHTER.

[TomC]

All I'm saying Dezzy is that I know that the way in which halal meat is prepared does not sit right with me, and I'm allowed to have that opinion, regardless of whether it's deemed hypocritical due to what goes on in slaughterhouses.

[RichardG]

All I'm saying Dezzy is that I know that the way in which halal meat is prepared does not sit right with me, and I'm allowed to have that opinion, regardless of whether it's deemed hypocritical due to what goes on in slaughterhouses.

I don't think that's hypocritical :)

[Tom4784]

All I'm saying Dezzy is that I know that the way in which halal meat is prepared does not sit right with me, and I'm allowed to have that opinion, regardless of whether it's deemed hypocritical due to what goes on in slaughterhouses.

Why are you acting like I'm saying you can't have an opinion on the matter? You can and I'm allowed my opinion that it's hypocritical to criticise one form of slaughter when both are equally bad.

It's my OPINION that if people honestly cared that much they wouldn't eat meat at all since a slaughter house is a slaughter house regardless and animals are scared and traumatised whether or not you shock them first.

[bots]

I get the point that Dezzy is trying to make, however, through the decades, the vets have contributed to the rules and regulations regarding the slaughter of animals for food that we have today. Those rules and regs were developed for a reason. The evidence for the current practices are irrefutable

[RichardG]

I get the point that Dezzy is trying to make, however, through the decades, the vets have contributed to the rules and regulations regarding the slaughter of animals for food that we have today. Those rules and regs were developed for a reason. The evidence for the current practices are irrefutable

Can't argue with science :clap1:

[TomC]

Why are you acting like I'm saying you can't have an opinion on the matter? You can and I'm allowed my opinion that it's hypocritical to criticise one form of slaughter when both are equally bad.

It's my OPINION that if people honestly cared that much they wouldn't eat meat at all since a slaughter house is a slaughter house regardless and animals are scared and traumatised whether or not you shock them first.

Because you're arguing with me telling me that my opinion is hypocritical, suggesting I shouldn't have it.

[Amy Jade]

I don't eat meat but if I did start I wouldn't eat halal. Yes I understand the animals in slaughter houses all suffer the same fate but to think of the animal being strung up and bled upsets me, at least with them being stunned they won't feel as much pain and panic.

[Tom4784]

Because you're arguing with me telling me that my opinion is hypocritical, suggesting I shouldn't have it.

Where did I say you couldn't have that opinion? Give me specifics.

It's a hypocritical opinion but one you're entitled to.

[TomC]

Criticising my opinion is what led me to the conclusion.

[Tom4784]

Criticising my opinion is what led me to the conclusion.

Just to let you know, you're in the Serious Debates section. Criticizing your opinion is not the same as telling you you can't have it.

[Jordan.]

Why are you acting like I'm saying you can't have an opinion on the matter? You can and I'm allowed my opinion that it's hypocritical to criticise one form of slaughter when both are equally bad.

It's my OPINION that if people honestly cared that much they wouldn't eat meat at all since a slaughter house is a slaughter house regardless and animals are scared and traumatised whether or not you shock them first.

Is anyone saying they care that much? If we did we'd be vegetarians. However that doesn't mean we can't care somewhat and hope the animal went in the most painless way possible, which you're implying is wrong.

[Tom4784]

Is anyone saying they care that much? If we did we'd be vegetarians. However that doesn't mean we can't care somewhat and hope the animal went in the most painless way possible, which you're implying is wrong.

I'm not implying it's wrong to not want the animal to suffer, i'm just saying that the slaughter house method isn't peaceful for the animal whether it's halal or not.

Neither method is very humane which is why I find it strange that people accept one method yet denounce the other despite being essentially the same thing.

[TomC]

Just to let you know, you're in the Serious Debates section. Criticizing your opinion is not the same as telling you you can't have it.

Well, my opinion is that many posts you've made in this thread are of little substance. You've constantly laboured the same points and failed to recognize the bloody obvious... Death is not just death, and regardless of whether the animal is bred to die, it's best if it goes humanely. I don't know how you can even dispute this.

[bots]

Neither method is very humane which is why I find it strange that people accept one method yet denounce the other despite being essentially the same thing.

I think this is why your view is different from others. People see a clear difference that you don't. As I said before, the fact that standard practices come from qualified vet input clearly puts the standard form at a more humane level. Those are facts. If you want to disagree with qualified people, that's fine, but your opinion isn't going to carry much weight.

[TomC]

I think this is why your view is different from others. People see a clear difference that you don't. As I said before, the fact that standard practices come from qualified vet input clearly puts the standard form at a more humane level. Those are facts. If you want to disagree with qualified people, that's fine, but your opinion isn't going to carry much weight.

This is a very good point.

[Tom4784]

Well, my opinion is that many posts you've made in this thread are of little substance. You've constantly laboured the same points and failed to recognize the bloody obvious... Death is not just death, and regardless of whether the animal is bred to die, it's best if it goes humanely. I don't know how you can even dispute this.

Good for you.

I think it's stupid to think that slitting an animals throat and hanging it upside down to drain it's blood is suddenly humane just because it's brain has been fried beforehand. It's still a brutal and awful way to die. The only difference between the two methods is that the stun method allows people to delude themselves into thinking they're being kind.

Both methods are inhumane as ****.

[Tom4784]

I think this is why your view is different from others. People see a clear difference that you don't. As I said before, the fact that standard practices come from qualified vet input clearly puts the standard form at a more humane level. Those are facts. If you want to disagree with qualified people, that's fine, but your opinion isn't going to carry much weight.

Funny how they declared the quickest and cheapest method of execution the most humane.

[TomC]

Good for you.

I think it's stupid to think that slitting an animals throat and hanging it upside down to drain it's blood is suddenly humane just because it's brain has been fried beforehand. It's still a brutal and awful way to die. The only difference between the two methods is that the stun method allows people to delude themselves into thinking they're being kind.

Both methods are inhumane as ****.

The difference is that no step is taken to prevent pain and fear with the Halal method, whereas the HSA stipulates that animals must be stunned, rendering them insensible to pain.

All we're saying is that one if far more humane.

[Tom4784]

The difference is that no step is taken to prevent pain and fear with the Halal method, whereas the HSA stipulates that animals must be stunned, rendering them insensible to pain.

All we're saying is that one if far more humane.

I'd rather not delude myself by acting like the stun method is a great kindness to the animal.

I love meat and I'd rather face facts when it comes to where it comes from. Both methods are far from humane and i don't care what INDUSTRY regulators have to say. I'd rather own the fact that neither method is ideal.

[Jordan.]

I'm not implying it's wrong to not want the animal to suffer, i'm just saying that the slaughter house method isn't peaceful for the animal whether it's halal or not.

Neither method is very humane which is why I find it strange that people accept one method yet denounce the other despite being essentially the same thing.

But it's not, which people have said countless times. It seems incapable for you to understand one causes more suffering which is why the other (whilst still bad) is the preferred method.

[Cherie]

But it's not, which people have said countless. It seems incapable for you to understand one causes more suffering which is why the other (whilst still bad) is the preferred method.

Sums it up in a nutshell

[TomC]

Sums it up in a nutshell

Agreed.

[RichardG]

But it's not, which people have said countless. It seems incapable for you to understand one causes more suffering which is why the other (whilst still bad) is the preferred method.

exactly

[Tom4784]

But it's not, which people have said countless times. It seems incapable for you to understand one causes more suffering which is why the other (whilst still bad) is the preferred method.

Because the difference is negligible and the animal suffers regardless.

I understand it perfectly, I just refuse to convince myself that one method is right and the other wrong when they're both terrible. I'd rather face reality.

[SocietyIsRuined]

As a veggie, I've always wondered if it tasted different from non-halal meat.

[Beso]

But it's not, which people have said countless times. It seems incapable for you to understand one causes more suffering which is why the other (whilst still bad) is the preferred method.

spot on.

[Tom4784]

As a veggie, I've always wondered if it tasted different from non-halal meat.

I imagine it doesn't considering that most animals will likely be aware of what's going to happen to them before it does. Red mentioned it a few pages back that animals can smell the adrenaline in the air and that they'll usually show signs of fear prior to being stunned.

If the old adage about how meat tastes differently according to the stress of the animal is true then I'm guessing there's not much difference between the two methods.

[Marsh.]

Because the difference is negligible and the animal suffers regardless.

I understand it perfectly, I just refuse to convince myself that one method is right and the other wrong when they're both terrible. I'd rather face reality.

I don't think anybody's said one method is "right" and one is "wrong".

But if given an option between one that lessens the suffering of the animal and one that doesn't then a lot of people will choose the former as the "preferred" option.

[DemolitionRed]

I imagine it doesn't considering that most animals will likely be aware of what's going to happen to them before it does. Red mentioned it a few pages back that animals can smell the adrenaline in the air and that they'll usually show signs of fear prior to being stunned.

If the old adage about how meat tastes differently according to the stress of the animal is true then I'm guessing there's not much difference between the two methods.

Fear (adrenalin) changes the chemistry of the meat and makes it tough and causes it to lose flavour. A butcher once told me that naturally over red beef means the animal was pumping too much adrenalin at the point of slaughter. We have to keep in mind that supermarket red meat has often been injected with a dye. He also told me that cows that have had stressful lives are called "dark cutters" by the abattoir because the beef is a very dark colour. D:

[Kizzy]

Fear (adrenalin) changes the chemistry of the meat and makes it tough and causes it to lose flavour. A butcher once told me that naturally over red beef means the animal was pumping too much adrenalin at the point of slaughter. We have to keep in mind that supermarket red meat has often been injected with a dye. He also told me that cows that have had stressful lives are called "dark cutters" by the abattoir because the beef is a very dark colour. D:

That is so sad :(

[Cal.]

Why don't all of you just stop eating meat

[user104658]

I don't think anybody's said one method is "right" and one is "wrong".

But if given an option between one that lessens the suffering of the animal and one that doesn't then a lot of people will choose the former as the "preferred" option.
It's bull**** though, some of the "humane" gassing methods etc, and what the animals go through on the way to the gas cages, are just as bad if not worse than halal neck-ripping :shrug:..

I'm not saying everyone should go veggie... In my opinion we should embrace the fact that we are vicious omnivores and chow down on those tasty tasty cows and pigs.

But for those who can't embrace that... Srsly... They should just go veggie... Instead of deluding themselves into believing that they only eat the HAPPY cows who lived fulfilling lives and slipped away peacefully with little cow smiles on their cow faces :joker:.

No. Your hamburger was born and bred to die, and it died horribly to fill your belly. Sad story. Sad, delicious, tender, juicey steaky story.

I'm so hungry :(

[Marsh.]

It's bull**** though, some of the "humane" gassing methods etc, and what the animals go through on the way to the gas cages, are just as bad if not worse than halal neck-ripping :shrug:..

I'm not saying everyone should go veggie... In my opinion we should embrace the fact that we are vicious omnivores and chow down on those tasty tasty cows and pigs.

But for those who can't embrace that... Srsly... They should just go veggie... Instead of deluding themselves into believing that they only eat the HAPPY cows who lived fulfilling lives and slipped away peacefully with little cow smiles on their cow faces :joker:.

No. Your hamburger was born and bred to die, and it died horribly to fill your belly. Sad story. Sad, delicious, tender, juicey steaky story.

I'm so hungry :(

Well I haven't seen anyone in here claiming that more humane (not humane per se, just more humane) methods allow the animals zero suffering and just float away happily.

But if I do, I totally agree. :laugh:

[Princess]

Well this thread was a headache and a half to read through, pretty much agree with Dezzy. All these people thinking that a certain way of killing is humane, I'd like to see you go to a slaugther house and still call it humane.

[Beso]

Well this thread was a headache and a half to read through, pretty much agree with Dezzy. All these people thinking that a certain way of killing is humane, I'd like to see you go to a slaugther house and still call it humane.

nobody is saying or thinking that.:fist: they seem to be saying it's less barbaric.

[billy123]

As a veggie, I've always wondered if it tasted different from non-halal meat.No it doesnt.
It is true that apparently a badly slaughtered animal tastes bad due it releasing adrenaline into its body but that doesnt happen with the Halal method of slaughter. I think most peoples objections with Halal slaughter are just a combination of religious/racial predudice and ignorance.

[user104658]

nobody is saying or thinking that.:fist: they seem to be saying it's less barbaric.

Incorrectly.

[Jamie89]

Found this online:

This is a statement by the animal welfare group Royals Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals based on reseach by Farm Animal Welfare Committee (FAWC)

It presents a lot of the research that animals do indeed feel significant pain for as long as two minutes.

"Our conclusions ... are that such an injury will result in significant pain and distress ... before insensibility supervenes.
Fawc is in agreement with the prevailing scientific consensus that slaughter without pre-stunning causes pain and distress.
On the basis that this is avoidable and in the interests of welfare, Fawc concludes that all animals should be pre-stunned before slaughter."


As such, it recommends that all animals are stunned before having their throat cut.

These are not anti-religious organisations or cranks, but very mainstream, respectable animal welfare bodies, so worth taking seriously and engaging with the points they make.


Interestingly, in UK the Muslim organisation does not see a problem with this:

The Shechita Council, which oversees kosher meat, was contacted but did not supply a comment. Massood Khawaja, president of the Halal Food Authority, insisted that its animals were stunned. "The Koran says use your brain, ponder about things and that's what we are doing," he said. "It's a question of animal welfare."



tl;dr: "Fawc is in agreement with the prevailing scientific consensus that slaughter without pre-stunning causes pain and distress."



That's all anyone is saying!

No it doesnt.
It is true that apparently a badly slaughtered animal tastes bad due it releasing adrenaline into its body but that doesnt happen with the Halal method of slaughter. I think most peoples objections with Halal slaughter are just a combination of religious/racial predudice and ignorance.

Noone is being racist :facepalm:

[Cherie]

No it doesnt.
It is true that apparently a badly slaughtered animal tastes bad due it releasing adrenaline into its body but that doesnt happen with the Halal method of slaughter. I think most peoples objections with Halal slaughter are just a combination of religious/racial predudice and ignorance.


Okay we get it anyone that disagrees is an ignorant secular racist in your opinion


Incorrectly.

Or correctly depending on what side you come down on

[Livia]

Keeping out of this one before Kosher slaughter's mentioned too much and Ken Livingstone turns up.

[Jamie89]

Keeping out of this one before Kosher slaughter's mentioned too much and Ken Livingstone turns up.

lmao :joker:

[Cherie]

I blame my iPad Niamh :fist:

[Crimson Dynamo]

silly superstitious claptrap should be banned from the UK like the sensible Danes do. Pandering to such nonsense is disgraceful

[Niamh.]

I blame my iPad Niamh :fist:

You know what they say about workmen blaming their tools :hee:

[billy123]

Keeping out of this one before Kosher slaughter's mentioned too much and Ken Livingstone turns up.Is that the one where they get someone to teabag the sheep before slaughter?

[Livia]

Is that the one where they teabag the sheep before slaughter?

I think that's the Welsh.

[billy123]

I think that's the Welsh.Same thing.

[Livia]

Same thing.

Hey... if they Kosher slaughter in Wales, why don't we move all the Israelis there?!

You may have hit on something Bob. Put it on Facebook...

[user104658]

Or correctly depending on what side you come down on


Your. Bacon. Suffers. Deal. With. It.

[Cherie]

Your. Bacon. Suffers. Deal. With. It.

For the 900th time on this thread no one said otherwise

[user104658]

For the 900th time on this thread no one said otherwise

People are trying to make their own meat eating habits seem more moral / more cushy than others because their meat is slaughtered in "less cruel" ways... they're basically wrestling with their conscience and sense of morality and seeking justification in the idea that their meat is "humanely slaughtered" (as opposed to "inhumane methods").

It's nonsense. Animals during slaughter, and moreso on the WAY to slaughter, experience fear and pain. That latter part is important here. Their suffering is largely all before the stun or killing blow... which means it doesn't really MATTER how the five-to-ten-seconds that it actually takes them to die happens.

Basically all I'm saying is that people who are trying to make themselves feel better about their eating habits by comparing "their meat" to "others meat" as being harvested in more humane ways... need to cut it out. Because it isn't true. They are fooling themselves. If someone has a major issue with animals suffering at slaughter then they shouldn't eat meat full stop. They shouldn't fool themselves into believing that they eat the "OK, less cruel" stuff... ffs. Animals experience pain and fear when they are killed. That's a no-brainer. Some slaughterhouses are worse than others, though the differences are mostly negligible and have absolutely nothing to do with Halal, and are mainly to do with how the animals are transported and herded.

Worry about how the animals are treated in life... that actually makes some sense at least. It seems like people take more issue with a free-range goat being Halal slaughtered, than a caged chicken being "western slaughtered" because the goat took 3 seconds longer to die :shrug:. Never mind that poor chicky was kept bleeding and insane in a cage for years before being "humanely killed" :joker:


Disclaimer: I ****ing love meat and I have very little interest in how many animals suffer to get it onto my plate. Mmmmmm...

[Niamh.]

Been reading through the thread trying to decide where i stand on this issue and I think I have to agree with TSs last post really. Particularly this part :


it seems like people take more issue with a free-range goat being Halal slaughtered, than a caged chicken being "western slaughtered" because the goat took 3 seconds longer to die, Never mind that poor chicky was kept bleeding and insane in a cage for years before being "humanely killed"

[Jamie89]

I think the vast majority of people on this thread are simply saying that given the choice, when an animal is killed, it is more preferable that it is killed with less suffering, as opposed to more suffering. I know I've probably said that like 3 times now but my god, I just can't understand why people have such a problem accepting it. It has nothing to do with wrestling with a guilty conscious. Nothing to do with racial prejudices. Nothing to do with vanity. And nothing to do with whatever else has been suggested that I may have missed in amongst all the assumptions on this thread. Just simple common sense, surely???

[Cherie]

I think the vast majority of people on this thread are simply saying that given the choice, when an animal is killed, it is more preferable that it is killed with less suffering, as opposed to more suffering. I know I've probably said that like 3 times now but my god, I just can't understand why people have such a problem accepting it. It has nothing to do with wrestling with a guilty conscious. Nothing to do with racial prejudices. Nothing to do with vanity. And nothing to do with whatever else has been suggested that I may have missed in amongst all the assumptions on this thread. Just simple common sense, surely???

That's it, how animals are housed pre slaughter is a whole different issue and moving goalpost yet again

[Kizzy]

Let's not look at the bigger picture then, tunnel vision courtesy of Britain first.

[Tom4784]

People are trying to make their own meat eating habits seem more moral / more cushy than others because their meat is slaughtered in "less cruel" ways... they're basically wrestling with their conscience and sense of morality and seeking justification in the idea that their meat is "humanely slaughtered" (as opposed to "inhumane methods").

It's nonsense. Animals during slaughter, and moreso on the WAY to slaughter, experience fear and pain. That latter part is important here. Their suffering is largely all before the stun or killing blow... which means it doesn't really MATTER how the five-to-ten-seconds that it actually takes them to die happens.

Basically all I'm saying is that people who are trying to make themselves feel better about their eating habits by comparing "their meat" to "others meat" as being harvested in more humane ways... need to cut it out. Because it isn't true. They are fooling themselves. If someone has a major issue with animals suffering at slaughter then they shouldn't eat meat full stop. They shouldn't fool themselves into believing that they eat the "OK, less cruel" stuff... ffs. Animals experience pain and fear when they are killed. That's a no-brainer. Some slaughterhouses are worse than others, though the differences are mostly negligible and have absolutely nothing to do with Halal, and are mainly to do with how the animals are transported and herded.

Worry about how the animals are treated in life... that actually makes some sense at least. It seems like people take more issue with a free-range goat being Halal slaughtered, than a caged chicken being "western slaughtered" because the goat took 3 seconds longer to die :shrug:. Never mind that poor chicky was kept bleeding and insane in a cage for years before being "humanely killed" :joker:


Disclaimer: I ****ing love meat and I have very little interest in how many animals suffer to get it onto my plate. Mmmmmm...

Yeah, you hit the nail on the head.

[Ninastar]

I think the vast majority of people on this thread are simply saying that given the choice, when an animal is killed, it is more preferable that it is killed with less suffering, as opposed to more suffering. I know I've probably said that like 3 times now but my god, I just can't understand why people have such a problem accepting it. It has nothing to do with wrestling with a guilty conscious. Nothing to do with racial prejudices. Nothing to do with vanity. And nothing to do with whatever else has been suggested that I may have missed in amongst all the assumptions on this thread. Just simple common sense, surely???

I like you the more and more I see you post, Jamie x

[Beso]

Takes one ****ed in the head person to even contemplate either job. Any takers?

[Beso]

Are you joking me at beer

They should put that on the label

fish, in my pint:bawling:

[Marsh.]

Are you joking me at beer

They should put that on the label

:joker::joker::joker:

[Cherie]

Let's not look at the bigger picture then, tunnel vision courtesy of Britain first.

I didn't realise we were discussing from conception to death and everything inbetween :idc:

[Marsh.]

I didn't realise we were discussing from conception to death and everything inbetween :idc:

Were they conceived in a fear free environment?

[Kizzy]

I didn't realise we were discussing from conception to death and everything inbetween :idc:

Well if we're discussing how an animal dies and the implications associated for its 'welfare' ...bizarrely, then could we not extend the conversation to how ethically the animal is reared?..Or would that blow y'alls mind too much?

[Cherie]

Were they conceived in a fear free environment?

Maybe Kizzy can expand on that question

[Marsh.]

Well if we're discussing how an animal dies and the implications associated for its 'welfare' ...bizarrely, then could we not extend the conversation to how ethically the animal is reared?..Or would that blow y'alls mind too much?

Or maybe it's off topic considering the topic of the thread is specifically the method used for killing the animals.

[Kizzy]

Or maybe it's off topic considering the topic of the thread is specifically the method used for killing the animals.

It's perfectly apt and relevant to the discussion imo.

[Kizzy]

Maybe Kizzy can expand on that question

How about marsh decides who to aim his posts at and I decide who to respond to?

[DemolitionRed]

The topic is about our emotional reaction to the life and the premature death of an animal. Slaughter is merely the final moments of the whole cycle and the whole cycle is relevant.

Edited because I shouldn't write a post when I'm on the phone!

[Johnnyuk123]

Anyone know where i can buy none halal meat?

[user104658]

Were they conceived in a fear free environment?
As most farm animals are artificially inseminated by men with giant Turkey basters... It seems unlikely :joker:.

Cow rape is no laughing matter actually :nono:.

[user104658]

Anyone know where i can buy none halal meat?
Loads of places. The same places you can buy none bread and none vegetables, I guess.

[Marsh.]

As most farm animals are artificially inseminated by men with giant Turkey basters... It seems unlikely :joker:.

Cow rape is no laughing matter actually :nono:.

If animals can't appreciate a hairy farmer whose good with his hands then they can drop dead for all I care.

[Vicky.]

I don't really care how my meat is killed. It would be nice to use the most painless method but I have never cared enough to actually look that up or anything so I'm clearly not that bothered..I know its animals but to me its just meat :shrug:

Having said that I only buy free range eggs. So I am not completely cruel :laugh:

[DemolitionRed]

I've stood on many a picket line to stop meat animals, including horses, being transported on ships to the far east and Asia. I'm all for meat being transported to these places but on the hook and not on the hoof.

I am an occasional meat eater and I do care about the cycle of that animals life up to and including death. There is nothing soft about being humane.

[Cherie]

How about marsh decides who to aim his posts at and I decide who to respond to?

Don't I get to respond in this new regime :worry: when did you get so bossy :unsure:

[Vicky.]

I've stood on many a picket line to stop meat animals, including horses, being transported on ships to the far east and Asia. I'm all for meat being transported to these places but on the hook and not on the hoof.

I am an occasional meat eater and I do care about the cycle of that animals life up to and including death. There is nothing soft about being humane.

Of course not. I was just being kinda brutally honest about it. I could say I care..and I certainly don't like the idea of animals suffering needlessly. But realistically, I don't think of their suffering while making a bacon sarnie :/

[bots]

Don't I get to respond in this new regime :worry: when did you get so bossy :unsure:

:fist: :laugh:

[Kizzy]

Don't I get to respond in this new regime :worry: when did you get so bossy :unsure:

You can do whatever you like sweetie, btw have you seen my avatar? :laugh:

[Cherie]

You can do whatever you like sweetie, btw have you seen my avatar? :laugh:

:love: