Council faves Muslim boycott of school meals

[Brillopad]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5023145/Council-faces-Muslim-boycott-school-meals-halal-row.html

I support the ban. Britain is generally considered a nation of animal lovers, I know I am, and should not put aside its ideals to appease the religious views of minority groups. We should never bow down to such pressure.

There are always other options for those that don’t want to either eat any meat or eat meat that hasn’t been slaughtered in a certain way. To expect the nation as a whole to accept such cruelty when it generally goes against their own beliefs is unacceptable. Animals have rights too.

I know there will be the usual cries about killing any animals for food is wrong but at least we try to do so in a humane way. We should not abandon that to satisfy the few. I also abhor any sports that cause suffering to animals and would personally ban them so that argument is not applicable here.

[Oliver_W]

Halal slaughter should just not be allowed at all; at best, it should be in one of the specialised meat sections you see at the end of the aisles in supermarkets, it certainly should not be the mainstream.

There's always packed lunches for parents who don't want their children to eat normal meat.

[Kazanne]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5023145/Council-faces-Muslim-boycott-school-meals-halal-row.html

I support the ban. Britain is generally considered a nation of animal lovers, I know I am, and should not put aside its ideals to appease the religious views of minority groups. We should never bow down to such pressure.

There are always other options for those that don’t want to either eat any meat or eat meat that hasn’t been slaughtered in a certain way. To expect the nation as a whole to accept such cruelty when it generally goes against their own beliefs is unacceptable. Animals have rights too.

I know there will be the usual cries about killing any animals for food is wrong but at least we try to do so in a humane way. We should not abandon that to satisfy the few. I also abhor any sports that cause suffering to animals and would personally ban them so that argument is not applicable here.


i agree brillo,but so many people close their eyes to how their meat is supplied, it tastes nice so it's ok for animals to suffer,typical human trait, IF and it's a big IF, the humans could be trusted to kill them in the most humane way possible, meat eating wouldn't be such a problem for me, at least in the UK we TRY to keep the animals suffereing to a minimal,some cultures don't they are barbaric,but saying that we have all seen the footage of what goes on in some slaughterhouses it's disgusting, animals suffer at the hands of some humans,even when it says on the packaging they are from free roam farms etc,is all that really true.I'm betting if we had to kill our own meat we wouldn't be eating much. I support the ban too.

[DemolitionRed]

If we think halal (its called zabiha when it involves the slaughter of an animal for meat) is cruel, then we need to also look at Kosher slaughter. Zabiha slaughter does allow the stunning of some animals before slaughter. The*British Halal Food Authority*approves of low-voltage electrified water baths to stun poultry and electric tong stunning for sheep and goats http://halalfoodauthority.com/faqs

Kosher slaughter, on the other hand, allows no stunning for any animal so shouldn't you be fighting for the humane slaughter of Jewish meat too?

[Brillopad]

If we think halal (its called zabiha when it involves the slaughter of an animal for meat) is cruel, then we need to also look at Kosher slaughter. Zabiha slaughter does allow the stunning of some animals before slaughter. The*British Halal Food Authority*approves of low-voltage electrified water baths to stun poultry and electric tong stunning for sheep and goats http://halalfoodauthority.com/faqs

Kosher slaughter, on the other hand, allows no stunning for any animal so shouldn't you be fighting for the humane slaughter of Jewish meat too?

I would ban that too. In my opinion there should be no exceptions to the humane killing of any animal for any reason.

[Oliver_W]

If we think halal (its called zabiha when it involves the slaughter of an animal for meat) is cruel, then we need to also look at Kosher slaughter. Zabiha slaughter does allow the stunning of some animals before slaughter. The*British Halal Food Authority*approves of low-voltage electrified water baths to stun poultry and electric tong stunning for sheep and goats http://halalfoodauthority.com/faqs

Kosher slaughter, on the other hand, allows no stunning for any animal so shouldn't you be fighting for the humane slaughter of Jewish meat too?

They're both on par and should be treated equally, but Kosher wasn't in school meals across Lankashire, nor is it sold as the default meat by several supermarkets (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2622830/Millions-eating-halal-food-without-knowing-How-big-brand-shops-restaurants-sell-ritually-slaughtered-meat-dont-label-it.html).

[waterhog]

if there is a demand
then poetry is not the command.
its going on and will breed
and biting bit is the hand that does feed.
rules and regulations
some will justify to there interpretations.
try our best to keep law break minimal
but in the uk the Islamic law does not govern our animal.

[DemolitionRed]

They're both on par and should be treated equally, but Kosher wasn't in school meals across Lankashire, nor is it sold as the default meat by several supermarkets (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2622830/Millions-eating-halal-food-without-knowing-How-big-brand-shops-restaurants-sell-ritually-slaughtered-meat-dont-label-it.html).

Both Kosher and Halal meat ends up on our supermarket shelves unlabeled because both Jews and Muslims don't eat certain parts of an animal and so those parts are re-distributed to everyone else.

Killing an animal is never friendly. Some say that Kosher and Halal slaughter is kinder, others say its crueler. Nobody has ever been able to prove that stunning an animal renders it unconscious. Scientists still question if the animal is just paralyzed and can, therefore, feel the pain.

[Brother Leon]

"Animals have rights too"

But let's kill and eat them anyway, as long as it isn't Halal or Kosher...

[Oliver_W]

Both Kosher and Halal meat ends up on our supermarket shelves unlabeled because both Jews and Muslims don't eat certain parts of an animal and so those parts are re-distributed to everyone else.

Killing an animal is never friendly. Some say that Kosher and Halal slaughter is kinder, others say its crueler. Nobody has ever been able to prove that stunning an animal renders it unconscious. Scientists still question if the animal is just paralyzed and can, therefore, feel the pain.
Like I said I think they both should be banned, but the reason people single out Halal more is because it's more common.

[Kazanne]

People like meat and will always eat it,the least we can do is make sure they live what life they have as good as possible and that they are killed as pain free as possible,if there is such a thing,Can we be trusted to do that? personally I don't think so.

[Withano]

It was my understanding that the largest (pretty much, the only) halal supplier in the UK does stun its animals before draining their blood... making it really rather similar to any other meat product in your local shops... so I cant really see the logic in it? Banning the suppliers that do not stun its animals first seems a more logical conclusion to me.

[Brillopad]

"Animals have rights too"

But let's kill and eat them anyway, as long as it isn't Halal or Kosher...

So how they are killed is of no concern to you.

We don’t have any rules to stop us eating meat but we have some some rules about killing them in a humane way and therefore we should ensure these rules apply to all - no exceptions. Why would anyone want to cause an innocent animal unnecessary pain. Not on in my opinion.

How someone treats an innocent animal says a lot about them.

[Tom4784]

"Animals have rights too"

But let's kill and eat them anyway, as long as it isn't Halal or Kosher...

True, animals can tell that they're about to be slaughtered whether they are stunned or not. The whole stunning aspect only helps hypocrites with their conscience, the animal will still be scared and distressed either way.

I love animals and I also eat meat, I simply accept the fact that regardless of the method, the execution of animals for meat is never pleasant and one method isn't better than another.

[DemolitionRed]

There is some bad practice Halal, just as there is some bad practice in our slaughterhouses but real Halal should not include factory farming and cattle are not supposed to be slaughtered under the age of two years. One of the things about Halal is, the life of the animal prior to slaughter should be one of the great outdoors.

We have some barbaric practices when it comes to raising animals destined to the meat market and the majority of us are isolated from what goes on. Nobody want's to talk about slaughter practices around the dinner table. We'd rather not know.

Most chickens seen in our supermarkets were raised in sheds that resemble small chemical plants and have never seen the light of day until their journey to the slaughterhouse.

Even though we no longer produce our own veal, we happily buy it in from abroad. The practice of veal raising is incredibly cruel.

We still transport large numbers of animals for slaughter abroad to countries where welfare rules are less strict or non-existent.

Suckling pigs are a specialty for dinner parties but suckling pigs are killed with blunt force trauma (usually by slamming them onto a floor) which rarely works immediately with one strike.

[Withano]

True, animals can tell that they're about to be slaughtered whether they are stunned or not. The whole stunning aspect only helps hypocrites with their conscience, the animal will still be scared and distressed either way.

I love animals and I also eat meat, I simply accept the fact that regardless of the method, the execution of animals for meat is never pleasant and one method isn't better than another.

I dunno know about that, I'd say an animal that is stunned before slaughter is definitely a better method to an animal which isn't stunned first. Its thought to limit or stop the pain that it feels.

I'd say any slaughter house that doesn't do this at the least, shouldn't be running in this country (fortunately, the large majority, halal or otherwise, does do this), and I'd say we need to look for an alternative in the meantime which stops or limits their distress and discomfort too. Lets have a chat about it over a kebab.

[Withano]

There is some bad practice Halal, just as there is some bad practice in our slaughterhouses but real Halal should not include factory farming and cattle are not supposed to be slaughtered under the age of two years. One of the things about Halal is, the life of the animal prior to slaughter should be one of the great outdoors.

We have some barbaric practices when it comes to raising animals destined to the meat market and the majority of us are isolated from what goes on. Nobody want's to talk about slaughter practices around the dinner table. We'd rather not know.

Most chickens seen in our supermarkets were raised in sheds that resemble small chemical plants and have never seen the light of day until their journey to the slaughterhouse.

Even though we no longer produce our own veal, we happily buy it in from abroad. The practice of veal raising is incredibly cruel.

We still transport large numbers of animals for slaughter abroad to countries where welfare rules are less strict or non-existent.

Suckling pigs are a specialty for dinner parties but suckling pigs are killed with blunt force trauma (usually by slamming them onto a floor) which rarely works immediately with one strike.

Yeah, this is all true, and all great points, making the story in the OP completely bizarre.

[DemolitionRed]

People like meat and will always eat it,the least we can do is make sure they live what life they have as good as possible and that they are killed as pain free as possible,if there is such a thing,Can we be trusted to do that? personally I don't think so.

So long as we are willing to buy cheap meat, we are willingly taking part in animal suffering.

[jaxie]

In my view there should be no circumstances where the humane treatment of animals has to give way to fad, whim or archaic religious rules written at a time when there were no humane alternatives.

Comparing this group to that group is irrelevant, it should always be about the welfare of the animals. We don't live in 2 BC. Ritual slaughter should not be allowed in this country under any circumstances.

There are other practices that also should not happen and slaughter houses need more strict regulations BUT that does not excuse or validate ritual slaughter.

In fact bring on lab grown meat.

[Brillopad]

In my view there should be no circumstances where the humane treatment of animals has to give way to fad, whim or archaic religious rules written at a time when there were no humane alternatives.

Comparing this group to that group is irrelevant, it should always be about the welfare of the animals. We don't live in 2 BC. Ritual slaughter should not be allowed in this country under any circumstances.

There are other practices that also should not happen and slaughter houses need more strict regulations BUT that does not excuse or validate ritual slaughter.

In fact bring on lab grown meat.

Completely agree.

[Kazanne]

So long as we are willing to buy cheap meat, we are willingly taking part in animal suffering.

I agree,but even if people paid more,I am not confident animals would be treated in the kindest way possible,no one is monitoring them really,just randomly undercover people will go in and report on the scum that get their kicks (literally) by scaring and torturing these animals, infact I ask myself can an animal lover ever work in an abattoir ? As for halal, I wont even go there.

[user104658]

I agree with Dezzy, the whole "stunning" narrative is to appease the conscience of people who can't quite get their heads around the fact that they find animals cute and adorable but also want to cut them up and eat them.

If you have a problem with animal exploitation and suffering... don't eat meat. If you want to eat meat... accept the fact that animals suffer and are killed to supply you with that meat.

I'm not saying it doesn't matter how they LIVE... I fully advocate good living conditions for animals pre-slaughter, and good living conditions for the slave animals (cows, chickens) who provide us with other animal products whilst alive... but that last little bit where they're rounded up for the meat grinder? Yeah... that part is going to suck for Mr Cow, and it doesn't really matter how that last 2 or 3 minutes goes down.

[Vicky.]

I agree with Dezzy, the whole "stunning" narrative is to appease the conscience of people who can't quite get their heads around the fact that they find animals cute and adorable but also want to cut them up and eat them.

If you have a problem with animal exploitation and suffering... don't eat meat. If you want to eat meat... accept the fact that animals suffer and are killed to supply you with that meat.

I'm not saying it doesn't matter how they LIVE... I fully advocate good living conditions for animals pre-slaughter, and good living conditions for the slave animals (cows, chickens) who provide us with other animal products whilst alive... but that last little bit where they're rounded up for the meat grinder? Yeah... that part is going to suck for Mr Cow, and it doesn't really matter how that last 2 or 3 minutes goes down.
Yeah I agree with this tbh

I know animals suffer so I can have a bacon sandwich or whatnot. No matter how they are killed, they are still just...used...for my meal. Its not a nice thought to contemplate so I also see why people use the 'they were stunned' argument...but as far as I know, theres not actually proof that stunning stops the pain or anything?

[Withano]

I dont think it has anything to do with a conscience tbh. I'd eat a kebab with or without the lamb being stunned, but I know it would feel less pain if it did get stunned, so why not give it that courtesy moments before its death? Wouldnt make sense not to do this really, when its a regularly practiced option.

[Vicky.]

We don't actually know it causes less pain when stunned though.

I would prefer the animal to go through as little pain as possible, of course. But if I am going to eat meat, it seems a little hypocritical to complain about how the animal is killed. I care more about how the animal lives before it is killed (using eggs as an example, though chickens aren't killed for eggs...I will only buy free range)

Though that said, I don't research where my meat comes from either tbh. I just assume that farmers keep them in decent conditions :S

[DemolitionRed]

I agree,but even if people paid more,I am not confident animals would be treated in the kindest way possible,no one is monitoring them really,just randomly undercover people will go in and report on the scum that get their kicks (literally) by scaring and torturing these animals, infact I ask myself can an animal lover ever work in an abattoir ? As for halal, I wont even go there.

If we had to go into a killing room to buy our meat, most of us would become vegetarian.

I don't know about halal or kosha slaughter because until its been proven that stunning doesn't just paralyze the animal, then it could turn out that slitting a throat with a sharp knife is kinder and quicker.

Having run a livery yard, I've stood with horses killed with a bolt to the head and with horses that were euthanized with lethal injection. Lethal injection looks much less violent to the horse owner but having witnessed both, I would say a bolt was quicker and kinder.

[user104658]

Having run a livery yard, I've stood with horses killed with a bolt to the head and with horses that were euthanized with lethal injection. Lethal injection looks much less violent to the horse owner but having witnessed both, I would say a bolt was quicker and kinder.

Yeah I've read this, there have been human "lethal injection survivors" (basically where they got it wrong and the person didn't die) who describe having been able to physically feel their heart and breathing slowing and experiencing serious internal feelings of panic / anxiety, while externally there were no signs of distress.

My gut feeling with the practice of stunning, is that it is simply to make the moment of death "more palatable" for the humans who are going to be doing the eating. They don't thrash and flop around and let out a death rattle so it all LOOKS kinder and more peaceful... the truth in all probability, is that they're still feeling all of the same things, they've just had their body's ability to react removed. Not only that but it actually draws out the process; stun - killing blow - death takes at least twice as long as just killing blow - death (which is seconds, if done properly). Stunning is for us... not for the animals. Sanitizing death for a comfortable existence. I stand by what I originally said; anyone who can't get their head around the realities of animal slaughter, and can't comfortably ignore it without the "white lies" about it, shouldn't be eating meat at all.

[Vicky.]

Yeah I've read this, there have been human "lethal injection survivors" (basically where they got it wrong and the person didn't die) who describe having been able to physically feel their heart and breathing slowing and experiencing serious internal feelings of panic / anxiety, while externally there were no signs of distress.

My gut feeling with the practice of stunning, is that it is simply to make the moment of death "more palatable" for the humans who are going to be doing the eating. They don't thrash and flop around and let out a death rattle so it all LOOKS kinder and more peaceful... the truth in all probability, is that they're still feeling all of the same things, they've just had their body's ability to react removed. Not only that but it actually draws out the process; stun - killing blow - death takes at least twice as long as just killing blow - death (which is seconds, if done properly). Stunning is for us... not for the animals. Sanitizing death for a comfortable existence. I stand by what I originally said; anyone who can't get their head around the realities of animal slaughter, and can't comfortably ignore it without the "white lies" about it, shouldn't be eating meat at all.
Yup. Agree with all of this.

Also have actually seen a video of a lethal injection survivor before and its not pretty at all. Read a few accounts of it too...sometimes it takes hours to die.

Stunning most likely does just stop the thrashing, I do think they still feel it but are unable to react. Only way they wouldn't actually feel it (IMO) is to actually anesthetize the animals first, which would be too costly to consider.

[Tom4784]

We don't actually know it causes less pain when stunned though.

I would prefer the animal to go through as little pain as possible, of course. But if I am going to eat meat, it seems a little hypocritical to complain about how the animal is killed. I care more about how the animal lives before it is killed (using eggs as an example, though chickens aren't killed for eggs...I will only buy free range)

Though that said, I don't research where my meat comes from either tbh. I just assume that farmers keep them in decent conditions :S

Yeah, I place more value on living conditions too, death is death and will be similarly traumatic for the animal regardless of method so it's better to focus on giving the animals good living conditions.

[Withano]

Surely we should all go halal if we care more about their living conditions :think:

[Brillopad]

Yeah I agree with this tbh

I know animals suffer so I can have a bacon sandwich or whatnot. No matter how they are killed, they are still just...used...for my meal. Its not a nice thought to contemplate so I also see why people use the 'they were stunned' argument...but as far as I know, theres not actually proof that stunning stops the pain or anything?

So if we are not sure we don’t bother stunning them and allow a method that we know won’t reduce the pain they feel. That doesn’t make much sense to me. Tying to minimise their suffering can never be a bad thing. Not trying and suggesting primitive religious superstition has more value is backwards thinking in my opinion.

[Tom4784]

So if we are not sure we don’t bother stunning them and allow a method that we know won’t reduce the pain they feel. That doesn’t make much sense to me. Tying to minimise their suffering can never be a bad thing. Not trying and suggesting primitive religious superstition has more value is backwards thinking in my opinion.

Like what's been said, stunning an animal is not an anaesthetic. Cutting an animal's throat will cause it pain regardless of if you stunned it or not first. The act of stunning is not an act of kindness but more likely an act of health and safety to prevent the animal from lashing out.

Being hit with a tazer or a stun gun wouldn't prevent you from feeling any pain that would follow, why do you think that would be the case for an animal?

[DemolitionRed]

Surely we should all go halal if we care more about their living conditions :think:

I was reading a report from an abattoir vet yesterday. She visited a halal slaughterhouse because she wanted to see how the animals reacted. She reported back that the sheep that had its throat cut reacted more to her waving a hand in front of its face than the knife that cut its throat. She was amazed by the lack of reaction and reported back that the sheep didn't seem to be aware its life was in danger.

[jaxie]

I would have thought it rather silly for a vet, or anyone really to expect a sheep to be afraid of a knife. It might never have seen one before and certainly would never have used one so why would it be aware it's life was in danger? What a bizarre thing for a 'vet' to suggest and I'd have to question the credentials and intelligence of anyone writing such an article. That doesn't mean it would be any less unpleasant or distressing to be stabbed in the neck with a knife and left to bleed to death.

Not being an expert I can't claim to know for sure the thoughts and opinions of a sheep (aside from the obvious that the sheep is unlikely to have come across many knives in the grass) nor effects of tasers or stunning but would have thought and hoped this rendered the poor animal unconscious rather than just paralysed so that there wasn't an awareness at point of death. That is certainly what the word stun seems to suggest to me. It definitely sounds much kinder than bleeding to death for the sake of an archaic ritual which makes no real difference to the actual meat ingested.

And I can't see anyone has produced any evidence to suggest an animal slaughtered in religious ceremony is kept during it's life any more kindly than any other farm animal.

[Cherie]

Doesn't stunning an animal render it unconcious? Anyone who has had an operation knows you feel no pain so why would it be different for an animal? hanging upside down while slowly bleeding to death is more acceptable because they have lived in a field? no can't get my head around argument, being killed is not a great option but if I were to choose how I would die I know the choice I would make

[DemolitionRed]

I would have thought it rather silly for a vet, or anyone really to expect a sheep to be afraid of a knife. It might never have seen one before and certainly would never have used one so why would it be aware it's life was in danger? What a bizarre thing for a 'vet' to suggest and I'd have to question the credentials and intelligence of anyone writing such an article.



That's not what I said. The sheep does not see the knife but as its throat was cut, it didn't react. It did however, react to the vets hand in front of its face.

[Cherie]

I would have thought it rather silly for a vet, or anyone really to expect a sheep to be afraid of a knife. It might never have seen one before and certainly would never have used one so why would it be aware it's life was in danger? What a bizarre thing for a 'vet' to suggest and I'd have to question the credentials and intelligence of anyone writing such an article. That doesn't mean it would be any less unpleasant or distressing to be stabbed in the neck with a knife and left to bleed to death.

Not being an expert I can't claim to know for sure the thoughts and opinions of a sheep (aside from the obvious that the sheep is unlikely to have come across many knives in the grass) nor effects of tasers or stunning but would have thought and hoped this rendered the poor animal unconscious rather than just paralysed so that there wasn't an awareness at point of death. That is certainly what the word stun seems to suggest to me. It definitely sounds much kinder than bleeding to death for the sake of an archaic ritual which makes no real difference to the actual meat ingested.

And I can't see anyone has produced any evidence to suggest an animal slaughtered in religious ceremony is kept during it's life any more kindly than any other farm animal.


:clap1:

[DemolitionRed]

Doesn't stunning an animal render it unconcious? Anyone who has had an operation knows you feel no pain so why would it be different for an animal? hanging upside down while slowly bleeding to death is more acceptable because they have lived in a field? no can't get my head around argument, being killed is not a great option but if I were to choose how I would die I know the choice I would make

We aren't stunned like cattle when we have an operation. Stunning causes permanent damage to the brain and we know it causes paralysis. What we don't know much about is the conscious state of the animal.

When we have an operation we are anesthetized which means we are put into a medically induced coma with intravenous medicine and gas. Even then, we have cases of anesthesia awareness where the patient is aware of what's going on, feels the pain but is paralyzed and can't react. Its uncommon but it happens.

[Kizzy]

I love the rosy picture painted of the clean clinical process painted by the advocates of stunning used in our 'traditional' abattoirs. Ignore the exposes into how they ignore even basic animal welfare standards, the fact they can see, hear, smell the fear as they are literally herded towards the stun/bolt.
Ask yourselves if it is so effective why are there guidelines on the best practice for signs of consciousnesses?

At the moment there are differing rules for different animals, horses can't be killed in sight of another horse, pigs can be gassed I'm assuming this is due to them being classed as more sentient?... that looks about to change though and they will soon be as inhumanely disposed of as everything else.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/michael-gove-animal-welfare-brexit-anti-suffering-pledges-environment-secretary-sentient-eu-a8023826.html

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/red-meat-slaughterhouses-restraining-stunning-killing-animals
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-eu-laws-legislation-animal-rights-welfare-protection-bill-government-tory-nightmare-a8025656.html

[Vicky.]

Doesn't stunning an animal render it unconcious? Anyone who has had an operation knows you feel no pain so why would it be different for an animal? hanging upside down while slowly bleeding to death is more acceptable because they have lived in a field? no can't get my head around argument, being killed is not a great option but if I were to choose how I would die I know the choice I would make

People having operations are anaestatized. Stunning is not anaestetic.

The comparable thing would be being tazered. After which people still do feel pain.

Edit. I see DR explained this much better than me. Should read all new replies before adding my own :laugh:

[Cherie]

People having operations are anaestatized. Stunning is not anaestetic.

The comparable thing would be being tazered. After which people still do feel pain.

Edit. I see DR explained this much better than me. Should read all new replies before adding my own :laugh:

Having never been stunned I don't know and neither do most people claiming to know how it feels I was making the comparison about being unconscious, and I love how people think its fine to be killed in a gruesome way if they have had a great lifestyle :laugh:

[Tom4784]

Being slaughtered for meat is gruesome no matter how you do it, it's just that the original method is easier on our conscience while there's no proof that either method is better for the animal.

A good lifestyle is way more important than a good death because, at a slaughterhouse, there are no good deaths but we can do our best to make sure the animals are cared for and happy before that.

[smudgie]

Being slaughtered for meat is gruesome no matter how you do it, it's just that the original method is easier on our conscience while there's no proof that either method is better for the animal.

A good lifestyle is way more important than a good death because, at a slaughterhouse, there are no good deaths but we can do our best to make sure the animals are cared for and happy before that.

Totally agree.
It's very important that my eggs and meat come from an animal that has had a happy life.

[jaxie]

That's not what I said. The sheep does not see the knife but as its throat was cut, it didn't react. It did however, react to the vets hand in front of its face.

It kind of is what you said. I find it very hard to believe a sheep having it's throat cut didn't react. :shrug:

[jaxie]

I love the rosy picture painted of the clean clinical process painted by the advocates of stunning used in our 'traditional' abattoirs. Ignore the exposes into how they ignore even basic animal welfare standards, the fact they can see, hear, smell the fear as they are literally herded towards the stun/bolt.
Ask yourselves if it is so effective why are there guidelines on the best practice for signs of consciousnesses?

At the moment there are differing rules for different animals, horses can't be killed in sight of another horse, pigs can be gassed I'm assuming this is due to them being classed as more sentient?... that looks about to change though and they will soon be as inhumanely disposed of as everything else.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/michael-gove-animal-welfare-brexit-anti-suffering-pledges-environment-secretary-sentient-eu-a8023826.html

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/red-meat-slaughterhouses-restraining-stunning-killing-animals
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-eu-laws-legislation-animal-rights-welfare-protection-bill-government-tory-nightmare-a8025656.html

No one is painting a Rosy picture. Some are just saying anything that decreases suffering is better. I can live with the closure of all abbatoir. I can't quite believe people are happily promoting throat cutting and letting animals bleed to death. Go figure.

[DemolitionRed]

It kind of is what you said. I find it very hard to believe a sheep having it's throat cut didn't react. :shrug:

Well I cleared that up by re-explaining what she said. As for feeling it, that's debatable because many people who have been stabbed claim to of not felt anything more than what they thought was a punch or a slap. https://www.ranker.com/list/what-being-stabbed-is-like/kellen-perry

[Cherie]

Well I cleared that up by re-explaining what she said. As for feeling it, that's debatable because many people who have been stabbed claim to of not felt anything more than what they thought was a punch or a slap. https://www.ranker.com/list/what-being-stabbed-is-like/kellen-perry

Being stabbed and having your throat slit from ear to ear are vastly different :shrug:

[Tozzie]

Both Kosher and Halal meat ends up on our supermarket shelves unlabeled because both Jews and Muslims don't eat certain parts of an animal and so those parts are re-distributed to everyone else.

Killing an animal is never friendly. Some say that Kosher and Halal slaughter is kinder, others say its crueler. Nobody has ever been able to prove that stunning an animal renders it unconscious. Scientists still question if the animal is just paralyzed and can, therefore, feel the pain.

How can it be kinder.........I know if I had to be killed I'd want to be stunned first and not just get my throat cut and hung upside down to let my blood drain out of my body

[Tozzie]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5023145/Council-faces-Muslim-boycott-school-meals-halal-row.html

I support the ban. Britain is generally considered a nation of animal lovers, I know I am, and should not put aside its ideals to appease the religious views of minority groups. We should never bow down to such pressure.

There are always other options for those that don’t want to either eat any meat or eat meat that hasn’t been slaughtered in a certain way. To expect the nation as a whole to accept such cruelty when it generally goes against their own beliefs is unacceptable. Animals have rights too.

I know there will be the usual cries about killing any animals for food is wrong but at least we try to do so in a humane way. We should not abandon that to satisfy the few. I also abhor any sports that cause suffering to animals and would personally ban them so that argument is not applicable here.

I most definately support the ban and if I had my way animals wouldn't be eaten. I hate the idea that humans kill for food when there is so much other types of food for us to eat such as:
Fresh fruits and vegetables.
Grains. Whole grain bread.
Nuts, Peanuts and Seeds
Soy Foods.
Beans, Peas and Lentils
Dairy Products and Eggs.

[DemolitionRed]

The scientific facts from Deutsche Tieraerztliche Wochenschrift (German veterinary weekly) volume 85 (1978), pages 62-66
This is a real study that was translated by http://www.mustaqim.co.uk/halal.htm The original study can be downloaded as a PDF


A team at the University of Hannover in Germany examined these 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.

[Tom4784]

The scientific facts from Deutsche Tieraerztliche Wochenschrift (German veterinary weekly) volume 85 (1978), pages 62-66
This is a real study that was translated by http://www.mustaqim.co.uk/halal.htm The original study can be downloaded as a PDF


A team at the University of Hannover in Germany examined these 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.

I suspected as much, I said earlier that the act of Stunning seems to be more of a health and safety issue than for the benefit of the animal.

[Vicky.]

I suspected as much, I said earlier that the act of Stunning seems to be more of a health and safety issue than for the benefit of the animal.

Indeed. Not shocked at all by that, nor that the throat cutting didn't actually cause pain. Obviously I have never had my throat cut, but I have had serious deep cuts, that I did not even realise I had done, until I saw the blood, and even then it didn't hurt until a little while afterwards.

[waterhog]

glad you lot are not near the vein ?

[Niamh.]

I agree with Dezzy, the whole "stunning" narrative is to appease the conscience of people who can't quite get their heads around the fact that they find animals cute and adorable but also want to cut them up and eat them.

If you have a problem with animal exploitation and suffering... don't eat meat. If you want to eat meat... accept the fact that animals suffer and are killed to supply you with that meat.

I'm not saying it doesn't matter how they LIVE... I fully advocate good living conditions for animals pre-slaughter, and good living conditions for the slave animals (cows, chickens) who provide us with other animal products whilst alive... but that last little bit where they're rounded up for the meat grinder? Yeah... that part is going to suck for Mr Cow, and it doesn't really matter how that last 2 or 3 minutes goes down.

I agree with this too. I hate reading this stuff or thinking about it too much because it really is horrendous what we do to animals. People glossing over all this and pretending we're somehow morally better than Muslims or Jews because we kill those animals a bit differently are burying their heads in the sand imho

[user104658]

I agree with this too. I hate reading this stuff or thinking about it too much because it really is horrendous what we do to animals. People glossing over all this and pretending we're somehow morally better than Muslims or Jews because we kill those animals a bit differently are burying their heads in the sand imho"We kill, skin, chop up and consume the flesh of animals in a NICE way, not like these backwards folks from backwards places :nono:"

It is a barbaric practice but, if we're being totally honest, it's just one of a whole heap of things we put on the morality back-burner in order to live a normal day to day life :shrug:. We exploit animals, we exploit less fortunate humans, we exploit the planet itself. And we are ourselves exploited. But it's how our race now functions from the ground up and doing anything different would be a radical departure from everything we consider to be "a normal life", and it would also be impossible in practical terms, because of how far along we are now. I think I said in another thread recently... Any chance the human race had to go in a different direction ended in the early 1800's with the industrial revolution. The only choices now are to accept / ignore the overall ****show and live happily day to day... Or attempt to fight against it but inevitably fail. I personally just don't have the energy for grand idealism on top of the day to day stuff, so... I'm going to keep eating piggies :shrug:.

[Niamh.]

"We kill, skin, chop up and consume the flesh of animals in a NICE way, not like these backwards folks from backwards places :nono:"

It is a barbaric practice but, if we're being totally honest, it's just one of a whole heap of things we put on the morality back-burner in order to live a normal day to day life :shrug:. We exploit animals, we exploit less fortunate humans, we exploit the planet itself. And we are ourselves exploited. But it's how our race now functions from the ground up and doing anything different would be a radical departure from everything we consider to be "a normal life", and it would also be impossible in practical terms, because of how far along we are now. I think I said in another thread recently... Any chance the human race had to go in a different direction ended in the early 1800's with the industrial revolution. The only choices now are to accept / ignore the overall ****show and live happily day to day... Or attempt to fight against it but inevitably fail. I personally just don't have the energy for grand idealism on top of the day to day stuff, so... I'm going to keep eating piggies :shrug:.

Yeah you're dead right. I think probably living in smaller self run communities or tribes would be the best way for humans to live but we'd still probably end up exploiting eachother

[Cherie]

I agree with this too. I hate reading this stuff or thinking about it too much because it really is horrendous what we do to animals. People glossing over all this and pretending we're somehow morally better than Muslims or Jews because we kill those animals a bit differently are burying their heads in the sand imho

that is not the issue here at all, as usual there is a defence mechanism that kicks in if anything negative is said about Muslim practices at all, the lengths some people have gone in this thread to defend slitting an animals throat and letting it bleed to death while slating stunning is laughable in all honesty. There is no good way to die but you would hope that an unconscious animal feels less pain than one hung upside down and left to bleed to death, nothing to do with religion just common sense.

[user104658]

Yeah you're dead right. I think probably living in smaller self run communities or tribes would be the best way for humans to live but we'd still probably end up exploiting eachotherI definitely believe that smaller systems of government are always better for individual people... But like I said, we're too far gone now with the post-industrial population boom. Even if small pockets of people were to do it now... They will still have to willfully ignore the fact that most of the world doesn't have the option. Which really isn't all that different to what we do now. Everyone will to admit that the way billions of people in other nations have to live is awful... But few would be willing to dramatically change their life (for the worse, or at least, less-comfortable) to change that.

[Vicky.]

that is not the issue here at all, as usual there is a defence mechanism that kicks in if anything negative is said about Muslim practices at all, the lengths some people have gone in this thread to defend slitting an animals throat and letting it bleed to death while slating stunning is laughable in all honesty. There is no good way to die but you would hope that an unconscious animal feels less pain than one hung upside down and left to bleed to death, nothing to do with religion just common sense.

But...its been proven this is false? And that slitting the throat causes less pain than stunning and bolting

And most people who have ever seriously cut themselves will know that you feel pretty much no pain for a fair while (serious cuts, not papercuts which hurt like a mother****er immediately). So I don't see why this would actually be different for animals

[Niamh.]

that is not the issue here at all, as usual there is a defence mechanism that kicks in if anything negative is said about Muslim practices at all, the lengths some people have gone in this thread to defend slitting an animals throat and letting it bleed to death while slating stunning is laughable in all honesty. There is no good way to die but you would hope that an unconscious animal feels less pain than one hung upside down and left to bleed to death, nothing to do with religion just common sense.

I have no reason to defend Muslims, that's actually my opinion on meat eating in general, it's nasty no matter what. You go to a slaughter house and tell me that "our" animals are slaughtered in a nice, friendly way :laugh:

I disagree with plenty of things within the Muslim religion, especially how women are treated but this is my genuine opinion on the meat stuff. I think it's all awful and there is no moral highground here

[Cherie]

But...its been proven this is false? And that slitting the throat causes less pain than stunning and bolting

proof can be offered up for just about anything these days :shrug: it just makes me smile that people who will pour scorn on most religious practices will single one or two out and big them up, how does that work?

[user104658]

that is not the issue here at all, as usual there is a defence mechanism that kicks in if anything negative is said about Muslim practices at all, the lengths some people have gone in this thread to defend slitting an animals throat and letting it bleed to death while slating stunning is laughable in all honesty. There is no good way to die but you would hope that an unconscious animal feels less pain than one hung upside down and left to bleed to death, nothing to do with religion just common sense.

They're not unconscious, they are stunned (paralysed) and it's been suggested - with links to evidence - that they feel all of it and take longer to die?

I wonder if you didn't read through the thread and missed the counter-argument... Or if it's just willful ignorance?

My stance on it has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with actually understanding how the brain works. If the blood supply to the brain is cut (such as when the carotid artery is sliced) it takes six to ten seconds to lose consciousness and less than a minute to die. That's < 60 seconds from no pain to death. If the animal is stunned, it has to suffer paralysis, distress, and potentially also pain for several minutes before death.

But that's "laughable" because "Muslims", apparently.

[user104658]

proof can be offered up for just about anything these days :shrug:

Us British folks has had enough of experts! :fist:

it just makes me smile that people who will pour scorn on most religious practices will single one or two out and big them up, how does that work?

It "works" because it has nothing to do with religion, other than people trying to take the moral high ground by claiming that western slaughter techniques are nice, happy slaughter techniques in order to (presumably...) suggest that "those other folks" are "cruel and barbaric" and don't even care about the feelings of the animals that they are about to skin and consume.

[Vicky.]

proof can be offered up for just about anything these days :shrug: it just makes me smile that people who will pour scorn on most religious practices will single one or two out and big them up, how does that work?

OK...if you can find a proper study that says stunning actually anesthetizes animals so they don't feel pain, and causes less pain than cutting the throat, please let me know and I will change my stance on this. Though I still put more stock in living conditions than way of death tbh.

I don't do religion, at all. And have criticized elements of the Muslim faith a few times. I have issues with near every religion tbh, in some way. I just really don't see why people get so up in arms about Halal slaughter. I notice even on this thread its been all about Halal, not much mention of Kosher slaughter...which is actually exactly the same. And you know the reason for cutting the throat in Kosher slaughter? Because its the method that makes the animal feel the least pain.

Basically the negative focus on anything Muslim is far more prominent than people blindly defending Muslims..of which I haven't actually seen. I have seen reasoned arguments against certain criticisms. I don;t think theres even a single member that agrees with every aspect of the Muslim faith. I think theres a few members who disagree with Muslims in general and will find any reason to be negative and blame them for all the worlds ills though sadly. To prove my point, I am tempted to make a thread about how Muslim men (as a class, not on an individual level. Not all Muslim men are like that disclaimer) treat women...and see how many people leap in to defend the Muslim men. Can't imagine there would be many.

[Vicky.]

My stance on it has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with actually understanding how the brain works. If the blood supply to the brain is cut (such as when the carotid artery is sliced) it takes six to ten seconds to lose consciousness and less than a minute to die. That's < 60 seconds from no pain to death. If the animal is stunned, it has to suffer paralysis, distress, and potentially also pain for several minutes before death.

But that's "laughable" because "Muslims", apparently.

Well..exactly.

I didn't know studies had been done and still thought even before reading that that throat cutting would be a much more humane way of killing animals (if there is such thing as a humane way to kill animals for food..I ponder as a meat eater)

Based on knowing stunning does not anesthetize, just stops the reaction...and knowing that cutting ones self badly, tends to give no pain for a while. So in the case of throat cutting, the pain would never come, as pain certainly does not hit within seconds of a bad cut, where death does occur within seconds from cutting the throat (right)

Was quite happy to read that a study had been done. But equally happy to read studies that show the opposite...infact I am extremely interested to know if there are any studies that say the opposite.

[Niamh.]

proof can be offered up for just about anything these days :shrug: it just makes me smile that people who will pour scorn on most religious practices will single one or two out and big them up, how does that work?

This is a post on meat eating in general from another thread that had nothing to do with any religions, this is just my opinion on meat eating in general nothing to do with backing Muslims, I think it's awful regardless

http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9648323&postcount=43

[Niamh.]

Well..exactly.

I didn't know studies had been done and still thought even before reading that that throat cutting would be a much more humane way of killing animals (if there is such thing as a humane way to kill animals for food..I ponder as a meat eater)

Based on knowing stunning does not anesthetize, just stops the reaction...and knowing that cutting ones self badly, tends to give no pain for a while. So in the case of throat cutting, the pain would never come, as pain certainly does not hit within seconds of a bad cut, where death does occur within seconds from cutting the throat (right)

Was quite happy to read that a study had been done. But equally happy to read studies that show the opposite...infact I am extremely interested to know if there are any studies that say the opposite.

yeah 100%, I cut the base of thumb and severed nerves while i was opening a bottle of wine years ago at work. It happened and I dropped the bottle but I didn't feel a thing, I just looked down and saw all the blood. I think your body goes into shock

[Vicky.]

yeah 100%, I cut the base of thumb and severed nerves while i was opening a bottle of wine years ago at work. It happened and I dropped the bottle but I didn't feel a thing, I just looked down and saw all the blood. I think your body goes into shock

Yes, adrenaline is a wonderful thing really. Something we take for granted :laugh:

(though I am no scientist obviously, I am just assuming its the adrenaline that stops the pain)

[Cherie]

They're not unconscious, they are stunned (paralysed) and it's been suggested - with links to evidence - that they feel all of it and take longer to die?

I wonder if you didn't read through the thread and missed the counter-argument... Or if it's just willful ignorance?

My stance on it has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with actually understanding how the brain works. If the blood supply to the brain is cut (such as when the carotid artery is sliced) it takes six to ten seconds to lose consciousness and less than a minute to die. That's < 60 seconds from no pain to death. If the animal is stunned, it has to suffer paralysis, distress, and potentially also pain for several minutes before death.

But that's "laughable" because "Muslims", apparently.

it is laughable because i guarantee if someone slit a cats throat and hung it up by its back legs to die, there would be calls for the persons genitals to be removed and I literally can't wait for you to disagree with this or at worse call me ignorant, yet another personal attack but I am used to it from you now.

[Tom4784]

it is laughable because i guarantee if someone slit a cats throat and hung it up by its back legs to die, there would be calls for the persons genitals to be removed and I literally can't wait for you to disagree with this or at worse call me ignorant, yet another personal attack but I am used to it from you now.

Why are you comparing what is normally a domestic animal to animals that we kill for meat?

If someone strung up a cat and left them to die for no reason then yes, that would be disturbing but you have been offered proof on why stunning is not a kinder method of execution for animals that are killed for meat.

You must know the complete lunacy of your argument, surely? You can't compare what would be the murder of a pet to the culling of an animal for food.

[Niamh.]

it is laughable because i guarantee if someone slit a cats throat and hung it up by its back legs to die, there would be calls for the persons genitals to be removed and I literally can't wait for you to disagree with this or at worse call me ignorant, yet another personal attack but I am used to it from you now.

If anyone killed a cat people would be outraged because it's a cat, an animal we consider to be a pet. People would also be outraged if someone killed a cat by stunning them and then killing them.

[Beso]

Talking pigs...whatever next.

[Beso]

If you want to see how long an animal takes to die after having its throat slit do a search for halal camels..

[Niamh.]

Deleted a post, if people want to watch videos of animals being killed they can google themselves.

[Beso]

Deleted a post, if people want to watch videos of animals being killed they can google themselves.

Sad..very very sad...dont bother moaning at me for evidence ever again.:smug:

[Niamh.]

Sad..very very sad...dont bother moaning at me for evidence ever again.:smug:

I don't believe I ever have to be honest. Graphic videos/links to graphic videos have always been deleted

[jaxie]

OK...if you can find a proper study that says stunning actually anesthetizes animals so they don't feel pain, and causes less pain than cutting the throat, please let me know and I will change my stance on this. Though I still put more stock in living conditions than way of death tbh.

I don't do religion, at all. And have criticized elements of the Muslim faith a few times. I have issues with near every religion tbh, in some way. I just really don't see why people get so up in arms about Halal slaughter. I notice even on this thread its been all about Halal, not much mention of Kosher slaughter...which is actually exactly the same. And you know the reason for cutting the throat in Kosher slaughter? Because its the method that makes the animal feel the least pain.

Basically the negative focus on anything Muslim is far more prominent than people blindly defending Muslims..of which I haven't actually seen. I have seen reasoned arguments against certain criticisms. I don;t think theres even a single member that agrees with every aspect of the Muslim faith. I think theres a few members who disagree with Muslims in general and will find any reason to be negative and blame them for all the worlds ills though sadly. To prove my point, I am tempted to make a thread about how Muslim men (as a class, not on an individual level. Not all Muslim men are like that disclaimer) treat women...and see how many people leap in to defend the Muslim men. Can't imagine there would be many.

Kosher slaughter has been mentioned a couple of times as well on this thread. And there have been some snide remarks as well but sadly we seem to have to put up with that every time Islam comes up in any context. Not from you.

I don't particularly care what group it is personally I just want the least possible suffering for the Animal. I do eat meat but it's mostly organic chicken these days as the animal welfare and slaughter bothers me a great deal. I love bacon but I don't think my craving it is worth the life of some poor pig really. So I don't eat it often.

[DemolitionRed]

I love bacon but I don't think my craving it is worth the life of some poor pig really. So I don't eat it often.

Even not often is sometimes. So when you eat bacon sometimes do you just give in to your craving?

[jaxie]

Even not often is sometimes. So when you eat bacon sometimes do you just give in to your craving?

No there are times when eating out that it will be part of a meal and I've eaten it occasionally. Sometimes the flesh is weak. I'm not a vegetarian but as I get older I eat meat less and less. Is there some special reason to know more about my dietry habits? Or just curious?

Even the cats or the local foxes test your conscience because if they get hold of a bird or mouse the animal literally screams. Even the frog that lives in my garden and has escaped cat clutches many times screams when they get a hold of it. Not nice.

[user104658]

it is laughable because i guarantee if someone slit a cats throat and hung it up by its back legs to die, there would be calls for the persons genitals to be removed and I literally can't wait for you to disagree with this or at worse call me ignorant, yet another personal attack but I am used to it from you now.

You're now imagining that I might call you ignorant and then saying it's a personal attack and that you're "used to it"? :shrug: Whatever floats your boat I suppose?

Anyway, to answer your question... err... yes people would be pretty upset if someone cut a cat's throat and strung it up by its legs. I'm not sure I want to visit your town if it's A-OK to electrocute them and then fire things into their skull, though :worry:.

[Cherie]

Why are you comparing what is normally a domestic animal to animals that we kill for meat?

If someone strung up a cat and left them to die for no reason then yes, that would be disturbing but you have been offered proof on why stunning is not a kinder method of execution for animals that are killed for meat.

You must know the complete lunacy of your argument, surely? You can't compare what would be the murder of a pet to the culling of an animal for food.

Naturally you can't see the point, so I will spell it out for you, all through the thread we have been told slitting an animals throat and letting it bleed to death doesn't affect the animal and is kinder than stunning so maybe we can use this method to cull badgers and foxes and stray cats, if it's a kinder end for the animal where's the harm

[DemolitionRed]

Naturally you can't see the point, so I will spell it out for you, all through the thread we have been told slitting an animals throat and letting it bleed to death doesn't affect the animal and is kinder than stunning so maybe we can use this method to cull badgers and foxes and stray cats, if it's a kinder end for the animal where's the harm

I don't think anyone said it didn't affect the animal. I mean, the effect is death.

As for badgers and foxes, the way we often cull them is probably one of the most excruciatingly painful deaths. Stray cats, I don't think we cull them over here do we? In Europe, they put poison down which we do for rats over here. That's often a long lingering and painful method of culling.

[Tom4784]

Naturally you can't see the point, so I will spell it out for you, all through the thread we have been told slitting an animals throat and letting it bleed to death doesn't affect the animal and is kinder than stunning so maybe we can use this method to cull badgers and foxes and stray cats, if it's a kinder end for the animal where's the harm

You are comparing apples and oranges, Whether an animal is stunned or not, slitting their throat is the preferred method used in slaughterhouses because it doesn't affect the meat while the poisons and chemicals used to cull pests or euthanise pets will often affect the meat. Killing animals for food an killing pest animals are two completely different ball parks and I really should not have to state the obvious as to why that's the case.

Also nobody has said that having their throat slit does not affect the animals, a lot of people have stated that it's an awful experience either way but the non-stunning methods are quicker and cause less suffering to the animal, people have posted legitimate studies that back up these claims. Perhaps you should read posts more carefully since you seemed to have gotten the wrong end of the stick completely in regards to people's arguments.

[Vicky.]

I would be happy with culling badgers and foxes by throat slitting tbh (I don't actually understand the need for culling at all, but accept that it legally goes on), rather than the methods we currently use. They die either way, so rather they are killed by the least painful method thats available.

I didn't realise it was legal to just kill stray cats..nor am I aware that culling cats is needed in this country...so can't comment on that or the methods currently used. But if they are barbaric (arguably the culling itself is barbaric. But again I don't fully understand the reasons for culling animals anyway) and painful, then yes, cutting their throats would be preferable.

Any animal that is deemed to have to be killed, I would go for the least painful method possible.

At this stage you may maybe bring up putting pets down in vets and how we should maybe be throat slitting for that (given you seem to equate killing an animal for food/good reason, with killing an animal for fun, and appear to maybe think if a psycho wanted to kill a cat, they should do it by stungun and bolt?). Except, that the current methods are mostly painfree anyway as far as I am aware. So no need to change them to add blood to the mix :)


This thead has actually made me think of things I would never have thought of before. I am now wondering if, rather than electric chair or lethal injection...it may be better to slit the throats of those who have been given the death penalty. Though, I imagine the families of the victims may want as much pain as possible to be felt, rather than just the death. Seeing the blood may help them feel they got vengeance or something though. Officials would probably never go for it. Too messy...and too quick. Tibb really makes me think of odd things at times :umm2:

[Vicky.]

Also nobody has said that having their throat slit does not affect the animals, a lot of people have stated that it's an awful experience either way but the non-stunning methods are quicker and cause less suffering to the animal, people have posted legitimate studies that back up these claims. Perhaps you should read posts more carefully since you seemed to have gotten the wrong end of the stick completely in regards to people's arguments.

This may be me. I have repeatedly said that cutting throats is actually a painless death, as it appears studies back up (and if there were any studies proving otherwise, I am sure they would have been found by someone by now. Maybe not cherie, but someone. I had a brief search but can't find any, but they still may exist) So if this is what Cherie means by doesn't affect the animal...then yeah I did say it. And stand by it given my experience of bad cuts with very sharp objects and how little I felt, along with the research actually specifically done on the matter.

But as DR pointed out, it obviously affects the animal in the sense that the animal dies.

Edit. Though I should maybe say, that throat cutting as a way to die...would only be painless if the cutting was done by someone skilled enough to do it right. Not an amateur throat cutting, which may not even kill the cuttee.

[jaxie]

This may be me. I have repeatedly said that cutting throats is actually a painless death, as it appears studies back up (and if there were any studies proving otherwise, I am sure they would have been found by someone by now. Maybe not cherie, but someone. I had a brief search but can't find any, but they still may exist) So if this is what Cherie means by doesn't affect the animal...then yeah I did say it. And stand by it given my experience of bad cuts with very sharp objects and how little I felt, along with the research actually specifically done on the matter.

But as DR pointed out, it obviously affects the animal in the sense that the animal dies.

Edit. Though I should maybe say, that throat cutting as a way to die...would only be painless if the cutting was done by someone skilled enough to do it right. Not an amateur throat cutting, which may not even kill the cuttee.

TBH I hadn't bothered to look for 'proof' since it seems pretty obvious to me that having your throat cut would be unpleasant and I've found this thread somewhat bizarre personally. Since you brought it up though I did a quick Google.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17972-animals-feel-the-pain-of-religious-slaughter/

It wasn't that hard to find just a Google of 'is cutting an animals throat a painless death'. :shrug:

RSPCA says a stunned animal is rendered unconscious. Which is what I'd assumed. There are several PDFs at the bottom of this article which explains why the RSPCA are opposed to halal and kosher slaughter.

https://www.rspca.org.uk/adviceandwelfare/farm/slaughter/factfile

[Beso]

Im sure a video showing each method if death would clear up all this confusion..unfortunatly we dont get treated as mature adults and are stopped from posting video evidence.

[jaxie]

Im sure a video showing each method if death would clear up all this confusion..unfortunatly we dont get treated as mature adults and are stopped from posting video evidence.

I personally wouldn't want to look at that.

[Beso]

I personally wouldn't want to look at that.

You dont have to..the videos links could state what was shown in them leaving it up to the individual to choose for thenselves rather than have some nanny state minded moderator decide for us.

[Cherie]

You are comparing apples and oranges, Whether an animal is stunned or not, slitting their throat is the preferred method used in slaughterhouses because it doesn't affect the meat while the poisons and chemicals used to cull pests or euthanise pets will often affect the meat. Killing animals for food an killing pest animals are two completely different ball parks and I really should not have to state the obvious as to why that's the case.

Also nobody has said that having their throat slit does not affect the animals, a lot of people have stated that it's an awful experience either way but the non-stunning methods are quicker and cause less suffering to the animal, people have posted legitimate studies that back up these claims. Perhaps you should read posts more carefully since you seemed to have gotten the wrong end of the stick completely in regards to people's arguments.

Perhaps you should take your own advice given what Vicky has just posted.

[Cherie]

This may be me. I have repeatedly said that cutting throats is actually a painless death, as it appears studies back up (and if there were any studies proving otherwise, I am sure they would have been found by someone by now. Maybe not cherie, but someone. I had a brief search but can't find any, but they still may exist) So if this is what Cherie means by doesn't affect the animal...then yeah I did say it. And stand by it given my experience of bad cuts with very sharp objects and how little I felt, along with the research actually specifically done on the matter.

But as DR pointed out, it obviously affects the animal in the sense that the animal dies.

Edit. Though I should maybe say, that throat cutting as a way to die...would only be painless if the cutting was done by someone skilled enough to do it right. Not an amateur throat cutting, which may not even kill the cuttee.

Thanks Vicky, I was trying to draw the comparison as to whey we accept animals throats being slit in certain situations but not in others, not everyone gets what I am trying to say or pretends not to, I always find you very honest in your thoughts and appreciate that you do not move the goalposts every five minutes, you truly are very fair and balanced and always happy to try and see the other side, I must try and be more like you :laugh:

[user104658]

Thanks Vicky, I was trying to draw the comparison as to why we accept animals throats being slit in certain situations but not in others, not everyone gets what I am trying to say or pretends not to

I don't think people don't get it or pretend not to, it's just a moot question when it comes to slaughter methods? Because all you're really asking is "Why do we accept animals being killed and eaten in certain situations but not in others", which is a totally different debate about vegitarianism... it has nothing to do with the throat-slitting. Unless you're happy to see people wandering around killing and eating the neighborhood cats so long as they stun them first :think:.

[Cherie]

I don't think people don't get it or pretend not to, it's just a moot question when it comes to slaughter methods? Because all you're really asking is "Why do we accept animals being killed and eaten in certain situations but not in others", which is a totally different debate about vegitarianism... it has nothing to do with the throat-slitting. Unless you're happy to see people wandering around killing and eating the neighborhood cats so long as they stun them first :think:.

For the 100th time there is a train of thought on this thread that throat slitting causes no pain... so if people believe that they should have no issue with animals being killed in this way outside the meat industry, I can't put in in simpler terms.

[user104658]

For the 100th time there is a train of thought on this thread that throat slitting causes no pain... so if people believe that they should have no issue with animals being killed in this way outside the meat industry, I can't put in in simpler terms.

But that's just bizarre if your argument is that it's not OK simply because of the pain issue? I mean, I can pretty much guarantee that strapping a grenade to a cat will cause no pain... so your argument is that people should have "no issue" with people blowing up Old Grandma Smith's tabby because it won't feel it?

The reason people have a problem with the idea of going around killing people's pets isn't "because it hurts" :umm2:.

"HAHA I just killed your cat!!"
"WHAT??!? Oh... oh my god... what did you do to him... did you stamp him to death? Did you hurt him and cut him and stuff?"
"Nah, I electrocuted him so he passed out, then killed him while he was unconscious. He won't have felt a thing"
"Oh thank goodness. That's fine then."

[Cherie]

But that's just bizarre if your argument is that it's not OK simply because of the pain issue? I mean, I can pretty much guarantee that strapping a grenade to a cat will cause no pain... so your argument is that people should have "no issue" with people blowing up Old Grandma Smith's tabby because it won't feel it?

The reason people have a problem with the idea of going around killing people's pets isn't "because it hurts" :umm2:.

"HAHA I just killed your cat!!"
"WHAT??!? Oh... oh my god... what did you do to him... did you stamp him to death? Did you hurt him and cut him and stuff?"
"Nah, I electrocuted him so he passed out, then killed him while he was unconscious. He won't have felt a thing"
"Oh thank goodness. That's fine then."

I have no idea what you are talking about none of the above applies to my point.

[user104658]

I have no idea what you are talking about none of the above applies to my point.

Of course it does and I don't even know how to make it more simple...

You said that; "there is a train of thought on this thread that throat slitting causes no pain... so if people believe that they should have no issue with animals being killed in this way outside the meat industry"

SO

If people believe that throat slitting is OK in the meat indistry, it's fine outside of the meat industry. That is your logic here.

Therefore

If people believe that stunning/bolting is OK in the meat industry, it must be fine outside of the meat industry?

Which leads me to the conclusion that you must think that stunning and killing cats is OK so long as it's painless.


If you DON'T... then I have no idea why you think that anyone who is OK with throat slitting in the meat industry is also OK with cat murder.

Frankly though, i think you're just scrabbling to make a point that you haven't really thought through.

[Niamh.]

TBH I hadn't bothered to look for 'proof' since it seems pretty obvious to me that having your throat cut would be unpleasant and I've found this thread somewhat bizarre personally. Since you brought it up though I did a quick Google.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17972-animals-feel-the-pain-of-religious-slaughter/

It wasn't that hard to find just a Google of 'is cutting an animals throat a painless death'. :shrug:

RSPCA says a stunned animal is rendered unconscious. Which is what I'd assumed. There are several PDFs at the bottom of this article which explains why the RSPCA are opposed to halal and kosher slaughter.

https://www.rspca.org.uk/adviceandwelfare/farm/slaughter/factfile

of course it's going to be unpleasant, there is no "pleasant" way to kill an animal for food. Do you think hanging a chicken upside down by their legs and dunking their heads in an electrified water-bath before cutting their heads off is nicer?

[Niamh.]

You dont have to..the videos links could state what was shown in them leaving it up to the individual to choose for thenselves rather than have some nanny state minded moderator decide for us.

This forum is 13+, we have a swear filter so how on earth you think graphic videos like that would be allowed is beyond me :/

[user104658]

On the topic of videos though, the WORST animal slaughter video I've ever seen was of pigs being gassed with CO2.

That's one of the most commonly used "nice" Western slaughter methods used for pigs. They screech in terror and climb over each other, at first, slowly dwindling to a guttural rasping sound as they gasp their last few breaths. Horrendous.

[Cherie]

Of course it does and I don't even know how to make it more simple...

You said that; "there is a train of thought on this thread that throat slitting causes no pain... so if people believe that they should have no issue with animals being killed in this way outside the meat industry"

SO

If people believe that throat slitting is OK in the meat indistry, it's fine outside of the meat industry. That is your logic here.

Therefore

If people believe that stunning/bolting is OK in the meat industry, it must be fine outside of the meat industry?

Which leads me to the conclusion that you must think that stunning and killing cats is OK so long as it's painless.


If you DON'T... then I have no idea why you think that anyone who is OK with throat slitting in the meat industry is also OK with cat murder.

Frankly though, i think you're just scrabbling to make a point that you haven't really thought through.


No I think you will find that is you and you have not comprehended what I am saying, I have not gone to great lengths such as providing links and proof that throat slitting is painless, I have not said stunning is a great idea, what I have said is I think slitting throats might not be such a stress free experience as is being promoted, so in view of that promotion would the same people promoting the idea of throat slitting as a kinder way to die, be okay with other animals having their throats slit outside the meat industry if there were going to die...whether this be culling or some psycho killing animals is just an example and not one to be taken to heart like you have done.

[user104658]

No I think you will find that is you and you have not comprehended what I am saying, I have not gone to great lengths such as providing links and proof that throat slitting is painless, I have not said stunning is a great idea, what I have said is I think slitting throats might not be such a stress free experience as is being promoted, so in view of that promotion would the same people promoting the idea of throat slitting as a kinder way to die, be okay with other animals having their throats slit outside the meat industry if there were going to die...whether this be culling or some psycho killing animals is just an example and not one to be taken to heart like you have done.

But you're making points that just don't exist? The methods used for culling animals are horrific! YES it would be far better if we could cut their throats. Do you think culling methods are selected based on being kind? They're selected based on what is cheapest and most effective. Usually poison which is pretty much the worst way to die imaginable.

If you're talking about animal euthanasia, sure, the lethal injection given lets them pass away peacefully. It also would contaminate the meat so is completely irrelevant to the meat industry.

So all you're asking is, outside of the context of the meat industry, "How should we kill animals"? We shouldn't, is the answer... I don't understand what you're getting at, at all.

The ONLY relevant question is, is throat-slitting worse than stunning and killing. I have no idea how or why you're trying to transfer just the "throat slitting" part over to an example of other random animal killings in an attempt to "make people see that cutting something's throat is bad". Yes it's bad. Killing animals is bad! We do it for selfish reasons, and the animals suffer. What is your point otherwise? I can't imagine you do have one UNLESS you are trying to say that while throat cutting "is bad", bolting/electrocuting "isn't bad", which would be a very confusing standpoint.

[Cherie]

But you're making points that just don't exist? The methods used for culling animals are horrific! YES it would be far better if we could cut their throats. Do you think culling methods are selected based on being kind? They're selected based on what is cheapest and most effective. Usually poison which is pretty much the worst way to die imaginable.

If you're talking about animal euthanasia, sure, the lethal injection given lets them pass away peacefully. It also would contaminate the meat so is completely irrelevant to the meat industry.

So all you're asking is, outside of the context of the meat industry, "How should we kill animals"? We shouldn't, is the answer... I don't understand what you're getting at, at all.

The ONLY relevant question is, is throat-slitting worse than stunning and killing. I have no idea how or why you're trying to transfer just the "throat slitting" part over to an example of other random animal killings in an attempt to "make people see that cutting something's throat is bad". Yes it's bad. Killing animals is bad! We do it for selfish reasons, and the animals suffer. What is your point otherwise? I can't imagine you do have one UNLESS you are trying to say that while throat cutting "is bad", bolting/electrocuting "isn't bad", which would be a very confusing standpoint.

If you haven't got it by now you never will, and I find it ironic that you have just preached on another thread about people wilfully pretending not to get it, when you so often exhibit this behaviour yourself :laugh:

[Niamh.]

tbf Cherie I think Vicky was the only one using that as an argument, most people are saying that killing animals in a slaughter house is going to be bad no matter what

[Beso]

This forum is 13+, we have a swear filter so how on earth you think graphic videos like that would be allowed is beyond me :/

Its real life, and happens everyday in every city of the uk...:shrug:

[Niamh.]

Its real life, and happens everyday in every city of the uk...:shrug:

Lots of things happen in real life that we don't allow videos of to be posted. If you have a problem with these rules maybe you should PM an admin about it?

[jaxie]

of course it's going to be unpleasant, there is no "pleasant" way to kill an animal for food. Do you think hanging a chicken upside down by their legs and dunking their heads in an electrified water-bath before cutting their heads off is nicer?

Nicer than what?

I've already said I am bothered by slaughter and dont find any of it nice. I would prefer slaughtered animals to be treated as humanely as possible since I am unlikely to stop the UK consuming meat personally. You are taking issue with that and not with those promoting stringing it upside down, cutting its throat and letting it bleed to death. Are you upset because Im not a vegan but fine that others arent? Not getting where you are coming from here.

[Niamh.]

Nicer than what?

I've already said I am bothered by slaughter and dont find any of it nice. I would prefer slaughtered animals to be treated as humanely as possible since I am unlikely to stop the UK consuming meat personally. You are taking issue with that and not with those promoting stringing it upside down, cutting its throat and letting it bleed to death. Are you upset because Im not a vegan but fine that others arent? Not getting where you are coming from here.

Nicer than the part of your post that I highlighted............

"it seems pretty obvious to me that having your throat cut would be unpleasant"

I'm not taking issue with you wanting the animals to have a nicer death (if there is such a thing) I'm saying the way they die in our slaughterhouses are horrendous as well. I've no idea what you're on about with me wanting you to be vegan lol I couldn't care less what you do or do not eat :umm2:

[Vicky.]

tbf Cherie I think Vicky was the only one using that as an argument, most people are saying that killing animals in a slaughter house is going to be bad no matter what

Yeah I do think I was about the only one to actully say this.

I do think its unpleasant either way. I agree that Halal slaughter LOOKS more unpleasant (having watched parminions link..the actual link doesn't need to be posted, you told people how to find it should they be interested.) than otherwise. It seems the main question is, IS it actually more unpleasant for the animal or not.


Jaxie I will read your RSPCA links in a bit (seems I need a pdf reader on here and I cant disappear back upstairs as my sons off school with the trots.). New scientist I have found in the past to be very much pseudoscience and infact that very article is a little problematic when arguing on this issue. The main problem I can see with the article, is again is does not appear to be comparing like with like. It states that cutting the throat starts a pain signal due to severed nerves (which is odd, as serious injuries tend to hurt not much more than a little nick...in people anyway. Unless this IS the pain thats spoke of in this. The pressurey feeling you get, but not exactly pain), and that apparently stunning afterwards removes this pain signal. Doesn't appear to be any actual looking into stunning then slitting, or indeed stunning the bolting...which is a different kind of pain altogether. Which is problematic, of course, when trying to argue for one method or the other. This is one glaring issue I see with this on a skim read and my knowledge of newscientist..ahem..totally misrepresenting a lot of studies before. I would much rather have the actual study, than newscientists take on it tbh. But appreciate not all studies are made available to the public

I will read the rspca stuff when I can. This is not a topic I had really thought that much into actually until this thread. So its been interesting, at least. And odd at times, sure :p

[Beso]

This forum is 13+, we have a swear filter so how on earth you think graphic videos like that would be allowed is beyond me :/

Its real life, and happens everyday in every city of the uk...:shrug:

[jaxie]

But that's just bizarre if your argument is that it's not OK simply because of the pain issue? I mean, I can pretty much guarantee that strapping a grenade to a cat will cause no pain... so your argument is that people should have "no issue" with people blowing up Old Grandma Smith's tabby because it won't feel it?

The reason people have a problem with the idea of going around killing people's pets isn't "because it hurts" :umm2:.

"HAHA I just killed your cat!!"
"WHAT??!? Oh... oh my god... what did you do to him... did you stamp him to death? Did you hurt him and cut him and stuff?"
"Nah, I electrocuted him so he passed out, then killed him while he was unconscious. He won't have felt a thing"
"Oh thank goodness. That's fine then."

Actually we have a serial cat killer in the south and people are very upset about how it's done.

[Beso]

Lots of things happen in real life that we don't allow videos of to be posted. If you have a problem with these rules maybe you should PM an admin about it?

Pointless i never get a reply.

[jaxie]

Nicer than the part of your post that I highlighted............

"it seems pretty obvious to me that having your throat cut would be unpleasant"

I'm not taking issue with you wanting the animals to have a nicer death (if there is such a thing) I'm saying the way they die in our slaughterhouses are horrendous as well. I've no idea what you're on about with me wanting you to be vegan lol I couldn't care less what you do or do not eat :umm2:

Perhaps I misread what you were trying to say. I'll stick with the RSPCA opinion myself rather than forum.

[Vicky.]

Having said this, even without reading the RSPCA stuff I am almost swayed by this alone

Which countries have banned non-stun slaughter, including for halal and kosher?
Denmark, Iceland and Sweden

As I believe the Nordic countries to be way advanced than us when concerning almost all matters.

Though still...as I have said through the whole thread, I put more importance on living conditions than the minute or so before/during death. But would still prefer the least painful method to be used in all animal slaughter, obviously.

[user104658]

Actually we have a serial cat killer in the south and people are very upset about how it's done.And they wouldn't mind the dead cats if it was a gentle cat killer. Well, I find that a bit odd but each to their own I guess.

[jaxie]

And they wouldn't mind the dead cats if it was a gentle cat killer. Well, I find that a bit odd but each to their own I guess.

:nono: Words in mouth, tsk.

[Tom4784]

Perhaps you should take your own advice given what Vicky has just posted.

You equated one person's arguments with everyone's and you've been ignoring evidence that proves what you are saying wrong and instead you're trying to take the thread off topic by talking down to people by acting like people don't understand what you are saying when it's the opposite, everyone understands what you are saying and it's nonsense.

Culling wild pests and putting pets to sleep is a completely different ball game to killing animals for meat. You are getting off topic in an attempt to move the goalposts because your argument that Halal slaughter is cruel in comparison to western methods simply does not hold water and there is scientific proof from multiple sources provided in this topic that prove what you believe simply isn't true.

This topic is about whether it's more cruel to stun an animal before killing it or not and the science tells us that stunning animals prior to slitting their throat causes them more distress than just slitting their throat and ending it in few seconds. The Culling of wild animals and such has no relevance in this thread and it's just your attempt to obfuscate the discussion.

[Cherie]

And they wouldn't mind the dead cats if it was a gentle cat killer. Well, I find that a bit odd but each to their own I guess.

that's what you folks are claiming regarding throat slitting, I guess the view changes depending on the animal :hehe: point proven :smug:

[Tom4784]

As for Parm's insistence to post slaughter videos, we've already established that it would be pointless to do so. Stunning prevents animals from reacting to their death so it look peaceful for the animal than it actually is. Posting a video and saying that one method is better for the animal based on visuals alone in pointless when there's been enough evidence posted in the thread proving that stunning causes the animal more pain and stress.

Stunning is a health and safety measure, it's for the benefit of the workers, not the animals.

[Cherie]

You equated one person's arguments with everyone's and you've been ignoring evidence that proves what you are saying wrong and instead you're trying to take the thread off topic by talking down to people by acting like people don't understand what you are saying when it's the opposite, everyone understands what you are saying and it's nonsense.

Culling wild pests and putting pets to sleep is a completely different ball game to killing animals for meat. You are getting off topic in an attempt to move the goalposts because your argument that Halal slaughter is cruel in comparison to western methods simply does not hold water and there is scientific proof from multiple sources provided in this topic that prove what you believe simply isn't true.

This topic is about whether it's more cruel to stun an animal before killing it or not and the science tells us that stunning animals prior to slitting their throat causes them more distress than just slitting their throat and ending it in few seconds. The Culling of wild animals and such has no relevance in this thread and it's just your attempt to obfuscate the discussion.


Moving the goalposts :whistle: did you actually read the thread? DR also supplied evidence about stabbing not hurting as did Niamh

[Cherie]

As for Parm's insistence to post slaughter videos, we've already established that it would be pointless to do so. Stunning prevents animals from reacting to their death so it look peaceful for the animal than it actually is. Posting a video and saying that one method is better for the animal based on visuals alone in pointless when there's been enough evidence posted in the thread proving that stunning causes the animal more pain and stress.

Stunning is a health and safety measure, it's for the benefit of the workers, not the animals.

its great to have such an expert on board, when was your last slaughter?

[Tom4784]

Having said this, even without reading the RSPCA stuff I am almost swayed by this alone



As I believe the Nordic countries to be way advanced than us when concerning almost all matters.

Though still...as I have said through the whole thread, I put more importance on living conditions than the minute or so before/during death. But would still prefer the least painful method to be used in all animal slaughter, obviously.

I still believe it's more of a health and safety issue than anything as to why non-stun methods are banned in those countries.

[Tom4784]

Moving the goalposts :whistle: did you actually read the thread? DR also supplied evidence about stabbing not hurting as did Niamh

If you're going to ignore what I've said just to make snide comments then I have my answer. You have nothing useful to add to this topic and you are floundering.

[Cherie]

If you're going to ignore what I've said just to make snide comments then I have my answer. You have nothing useful to add to this topic and you are floundering.

You are making misrepresentations about my posts

Did Niamh and DR contribute to the painless stabbing conversation or not?


Once you have confirmed I will be delighted to continue with my useful observations.

[Tom4784]

its great to have such an expert on board, when was your last slaughter?

I'm no expert, I've just paid attention to the evidence provided in articles written by actual experts that know more about the science than either you or me.

Again, this should be obvious, I've never claimed to be an expert. I'm quite sick of explaining things that should be obvious because you want to act in a completely undignified manner rather than admitting you could be wrong.

[Cherie]

I'm no expert, I've just paid attention to the evidence provided in articles written by actual experts that know more about the science than either you or me.

Again, this should be obvious, I've never claimed to be an expert. I'm quite sick of explaining things that should be obvious because you want to act in a completely undignified manner rather than admitting you could be wrong.


for a minute I thought I wrote that

[Niamh.]

Moving the goalposts :whistle: did you actually read the thread? DR also supplied evidence about stabbing not hurting as did Niamh

Mine was an anecdotal story about something that happened to me I wasn't using that as proof of anything. I've never had my throat slit, I'm sure it's awful . The only point I was ever trying to make in this thread is that the way animals are killed for meat is horrible in general and I didn't think there should be any kind of a moral platform with it no matter what side you're coming from, they're all morally wrong imo (and I say that as a meat eater)

[Tom4784]

You are making misrepresentations about my posts

Did Niamh and DR contribute to the painless stabbing conversation or not?


Once you have confirmed I will be delighted to continue with my useful observations.

Why are you asking me to clarify things that other people have said? Ask them.

If you refuse to add anything to the topic then you have already lost the debate. I won't play along with your trolling anymore, either get back on topic and actually try to debate or admit you are wrong.

[Cherie]

Why are you asking me to clarify things that other people have said? Ask them.

If you refuse to add anything to the topic then you have already lost the debate. I won't play along with your trolling anymore, either get back on topic and actually try to debate or admit you are wrong.

Because you claimed only I was referring to just one person in the thread which was clearly inaccurate. Its pretty pointless debating with you when you clearly do not remember what other people posted.

[Cherie]

Mine was an anecdotal story about something that happened to me I wasn't using that as proof of anything. I've never had my throat slit, I'm sure it's awful . The only point I was ever trying to make in this thread is that the way animals are killed for meat is horrible in general and I didn't think there should be any kind of a moral platform with it no matter what side you're coming from, they're all morally wrong imo (and I say that as a meat eater)

you provided anecdonal evidence? it's there, its on the thread, its not just Vicky as Dezzy seems to think

[Niamh.]

Because you claimed only I was referring to just one person in the thread which was clearly inaccurate. Its pretty pointless debating with you when you clearly do not remember what other people posted.

excuse me I never said that I didn't think the animals felt nothing, I said the opposite in fact, I said it was all awful :nono:

[Tom4784]

Because you claimed only I was referring to just one person in the thread which was clearly inaccurate. Its pretty pointless debating with you when you clearly do not remember what other people posted.

I've written paragraphs in response to your post that you have completely ignored in favour of focusing on minute details that ultimately do not affect what I've said. Are you going to respond to my points or are you going to carry on trolling?

[Niamh.]

you provided anecdonal evidence? it's there, its on the thread, its not just Vicky as Dezzy seems to think

So I spend the whole thread saying that I think both are horrendous but you choose to ignore all of those posts and pick one where I told a personal story to Vicky that happened to me and decided that therefore I was lying in all my other posts? I have never had my throat cut I don't know what that feels like but I'm sure it is ****, I'm also sure getting hung upside down and dipped in an electrified bath before getting my head cut off is **** too. I'm not denying that halal slaughter is horrible, I'm sure Kosher slaughter is horrible, I'm also sure western slaughter is horrible but you seem to think that's fine, so you're the one pretending that some slaughter is just fine not me :laugh:

[Vicky.]

I still believe it's more of a health and safety issue than anything as to why non-stun methods are banned in those countries.

Possible of course.

I believe that stunning is used in our country more for a health and safety thing than a welfare thing. So it would stand to reason that as much (if not more) emphasis was put on health and safety of the workers in those countries.

I'm a bit all over my place on my views on this, as I have never really thought deeply into the matter before tbh. I have been pretty firmly in the...living conditions matter so much more than final few minutes of life camp for as long as I can remember. Until for some reason I became overinvested in this thread. Which is nothing to do with cultural beliefs, more because it seems rational to me that a clean cut to the throat with a sharp enough knife should cause very little pain, if any at all and would be over quickly. And it was interesting to see a study posted that seemed to back up my thoughts on this. I think this is where I became over invested and maybe started getting a little silly with my bold statements :laugh:

Obviously if we could get it where living conditions were always good, AND we had a universal method of death which was proven beyond all doubt to cause the least pain then that would be much preferable. But thats unlikely to happen anytime soon. Maybe this lab grown meat stuff might end some of this debate. Though we will always need to slaughter animals for food, even of the whole world went veggie. Unless we also gave up our pets at the same time...as it is definite cruelty to make a carnivore pet survive on a vegetarian diet IMO.

[user104658]

that's what you folks are claiming regarding throat slitting

No it isn't?

I guess the view changes depending on the animal :hehe:

Yes that's pretty standard for most people. Are you a vegetarian, Cherie?

point proven :smug:

No, it isn't :facepalm:

[Tom4784]

Possible of course.

I believe that stunning is used in our country more for a health and safety thing than a welfare thing. So it would stand to reason that as much (if not more) emphasis was put on health and safety of the workers in those countries.

I'm a bit all over my place on my views on this, as I have never really thought deeply into the matter before tbh. I have been pretty firmly in the...living conditions matter so much more than final few minutes of life camp for as long as I can remember. Until for some reason I became overinvested in this thread. Which is nothing to do with cultural beliefs, more because it seems rational to me that a clean cut to the throat with a sharp enough knife should cause very little pain, if any at all and would be over quickly. And it was interesting to see a study posted that seemed to back up my thoughts on this. I think this is where I became over invested and maybe started getting a little silly with my bold statements :laugh:

Obviously if we could get it where living conditions were always good, AND we had a universal method of death which was proven beyond all doubt to cause the least pain then that would be much preferable. But thats unlikely to happen anytime soon. Maybe this lab grown meat stuff might end some of this debate. Though we will always need to slaughter animals for food, even of the whole world went veggie. Unless we also gave up our pets at the same time...as it is definite cruelty to make a carnivore pet survive on a vegetarian diet IMO.

I feel very much the same, there is no kind method of killing an animal for meat and, judging by studies of how much the animal suffers with each method, the only real difference with western techniques is the delusion we place ourselves under. It would be lovely if there was a kind way of killing animals for meat but there isn't one that won't spoil the meat.

More emphasis should be placed on living conditions and it wouldn't surprise me if the countries you listed earlier have laws and regulations that reflect that. Battery farms and the like should be illegal, it would certainly help the farming industry if industrial battery farms are outlawed in favour of more traditional and kinder farming methods more common to the average farm.

[Niamh.]

I feel very much the same, there is no kind method of killing an animal for meat and, judging by studies of how much the animal suffers with each method, the only real difference with western techniques is the delusion we place ourselves under. It would be lovely if there was a kind way of killing animals for meat but there isn't one that won't spoil the meat.

More emphasis should be placed on living conditions and it wouldn't surprise me if the countries you listed earlier have laws and regulations that reflect that. Battery farms and the like should be illegal, it would certainly help the farming industry if industrial battery farms are outlawed in favour of more traditional and kinder farming methods more common to the average farm.

They have battery farms for rabbits as well over in Spain, they're awful

[Vicky.]

you provided anecdonal evidence? it's there, its on the thread, its not just Vicky as Dezzy seems to think

It was just Vicky (from what I have read) that was claiming that cutting an animals throat is completely painless though. Which was what i thought the argument was about and why I quickly said that yes, I did say that.

My main reasons for such statements were anecdotal of course. The worse the sudden injury is, the less it hurts (cuts and such, breaks are an entirely different ballgame) as a rule, going on what others say regularly about such injuries, and personal experience. I purposely cut my own hand with a piece of glass when I was a teen (I can show you the scar if you like, so you know I am not making this up for the sake of argument :laugh: ) to stupidly try and prove that this glass was not sharp (spoiler...it ****ing was, clearly)

I swear to god, I felt no pain and even said 'hah, see I was right' before watching the blood drain from my friends faces as they saw all of the blood. And even after seeing the blood I felt nothing. To the point where I (as a morbid person in general) was finding it quite funny to chase my best mate about showing him the tendons, which were clearly visible from the depth of the cut, inside my hand. I felt no pain at all until a good 20 minutes after doing it. And even the pain that came then was not pain as such, it was more...stinging...I assume the start of my body trying to heal itself. The 'real pain' did not actually hit until a few hours afterwards.

Going off my own experience in this instance (and another..which doesn't make quite as gruesome a story so I won't bore you with that one, another deep serious cut, anyway), I would say that having a clean cut to the throat would be painless. As you would be dead (assuming the arteries were cut) before it even started stinging.

My dad very nearly killed himself by not even realising he had cut his inside leg very deeply with a stanley blade after stupidly cutting towards himself instead of away from. My father in law has pretty recently cut himself on his arm (luckily outside arm rather than inner, which could have been deadly) and did not notice this until he felt blood drip onto his trousers, some 10 minutes after the injury. Such accounts are not rare at all.

Anecdotal data means nothing in the grand scheme of things. Just trying to explain a bit why I hold the views I do tbh...and why I have been the way I have been on this thread...

I may have behaved problematically and I do apologize. Its not often I get so invested in threads.

[jaxie]

So I spend the whole thread saying that I think both are horrendous but you choose to ignore all of those posts and pick one where I told a personal story to Vicky that happened to me and decided that therefore I was lying in all my other posts? I have never had my throat cut I don't know what that feels like but I'm sure it is ****, I'm also sure getting hung upside down and dipped in an electrified bath before getting my head cut off is **** too. I'm not denying that halal slaughter is horrible, I'm sure Kosher slaughter is horrible, I'm also sure western slaughter is horrible but you seem to think that's fine, so you're the one pretending that some slaughter is just fine not me :laugh:

I think the problem here is that what Cherie and I have said has been misinterpreted but I'm not really sure why. I haven't said anything form is slaughter is good and I don't think she has either. I've just said that it seems preferable to use the least painless way which according to the RSPCA is stunning.

Also people seem to have accepted studies posted by DR as fact while ignoring the RSPCA information I provided. :shrug:

https://www.rspca.org.uk/adviceandwelfare/farm/slaughter/factfile

[Niamh.]

I think the problem here is that what Cherie and I have said has been misinterpreted but I'm not really sure why. I haven't said anything form is slaughter is good and I don't think she has either. I've just said that it seems preferable to use the least painless way which according to the RSPCA is stunning.

Also people seem to have accepted studies posted by DR as fact while ignoring the RSPCA information I provided. :shrug:

well I can only speak for myself and I haven't commented on any of the studies posted here, my only opinion on it is they're all awful and no side has the moral high ground

[DemolitionRed]

I think the problem here is that what Cherie and I have said has been misinterpreted but I'm not really sure why. I haven't said anything form is slaughter is good and I don't think she has either. I've just said that it seems preferable to use the least painless way which according to the RSPCA is stunning.

Also people seem to have accepted studies posted by DR as fact while ignoring the RSPCA information I provided. :shrug:

https://www.rspca.org.uk/adviceandwelfare/farm/slaughter/factfile

But as far as we know, the RSPCA hasn't done any scientific studies, therefore, they can only be going on what they witness. Death by stunning looks kinder to the human eye.

As for the RSPCA, I wouldn't trust that charity with a bargepole. I had so many bad dealings with them regarding their utter disregard for horses welfare, I wiped my hands of them years ago.

[jaxie]

It was just Vicky (from what I have read) that was claiming that cutting an animals throat is completely painless though. Which was what i thought the argument was about and why I quickly said that yes, I did say that.

My main reasons for such statements were anecdotal of course. The worse the sudden injury is, the less it hurts (cuts and such, breaks are an entirely different ballgame) as a rule, going on what others say regularly about such injuries, and personal experience. I purposely cut my own hand with a piece of glass when I was a teen (I can show you the scar if you like, so you know I am not making this up for the sake of argument :laugh: ) to stupidly try and prove that this glass was not sharp (spoiler...it ****ing was, clearly)

I swear to god, I felt no pain and even said 'hah, see I was right' before watching the blood drain from my friends faces as they saw all of the blood. And even after seeing the blood I felt nothing. To the point where I (as a morbid person in general) was finding it quite funny to chase my best mate about showing him the tendons, which were clearly visible from the depth of the cut, inside my hand. I felt no pain at all until a good 20 minutes after doing it. And even the pain that came then was not pain as such, it was more...stinging...I assume the start of my body trying to heal itself. The 'real pain' did not actually hit until a few hours afterwards.

Going off my own experience in this instance (and another..which doesn't make quite as gruesome a story so I won't bore you with that one, another deep serious cut, anyway), I would say that having a clean cut to the throat would be painless. As you would be dead (assuming the arteries were cut) before it even started stinging.

My dad very nearly killed himself by not even realising he had cut his inside leg very deeply with a stanley blade after stupidly cutting towards himself instead of away from. My father in law has pretty recently cut himself on his arm (luckily outside arm rather than inner, which could have been deadly) and did not notice this until he felt blood drip onto his trousers, some 10 minutes after the injury. Such accounts are not rare at all.

Anecdotal data means nothing in the grand scheme of things. Just trying to explain a bit why I hold the views I do tbh...and why I have been the way I have been on this thread...

I may have behaved problematically and I do apologize. Its not often I get so invested in threads.

I can see what you are saying. What I think is that the neck/throat is different in regards being cut to the point you are making because you have the additional distress of gasping for breath. Also the not noticing effect may just depend on where the injury is? I've never personally injured myself and not noticed. I had a bad head injury as a child caused by a spike and I screamed blue murder while spurting much blood. It's the only personal experience I can lean on. Luckily I lived!

[DemolitionRed]

well I can only speak for myself and I haven't commented on any of the studies posted here, my only opinion on it is they're all awful and no side has the moral high ground

You are absolutely right. There is one thing every one of us wants and that's the least painful death for the animal. We can debate and argue all we like but at the end of the day, we all want what we believe to be the best outcome.

Nobody is being immoral here.

[Beso]

Lots of things happen in real life that we don't allow videos of to be posted. If you have a problem with these rules maybe you should PM an admin about it?

Quick..dezzy has posted a video thats innapropriate for children...guess that ones ok though huh.:smug:

[Niamh.]

Quick..dezzy has posted a video thats innapropriate for children...guess that ones ok though huh.:smug:

Have you reported it Parmnion?

[Beso]

Have you reported it Parmnion?

Christ no...that would make me a hypocrite like yourself.

[Niamh.]

Christ no...that would make me a hypocrite like yourself.

How can you call me a hypocrite when you won't even tell me where this inappropriate video is? I haven't seen it but I'm a hypocrite for not deleting it? That's not logical Parmnion. If you'd reported it or atleast quoted it and it was inappropriate and I didn't delete then you could call me a hypocrite you silly billy

[jaxie]

But as far as we know, the RSPCA hasn't done any scientific studies, therefore, they can only be going on what they witness. Death by stunning looks kinder to the human eye.

As for the RSPCA, I wouldn't trust that charity with a bargepole. I had so many bad dealings with them regarding their utter disregard for horses welfare, I wiped my hands of them years ago.

I think it's pretty unlikely the RSPCA made it up as they went along.

There is also the study by Massey University mentioned here:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17972-animals-feel-the-pain-of-religious-slaughter/

Also if you read the article it explains a previous study that found in favour of the halaal method may have been flawed according to it's author.

As for what organisation you trust that's kind of moot and doesn't make their information less true.

But you are right in a later post when you say we all hope for the least horrible outcome for the animal. I'm sure that is so.

[jaxie]

Christ no...that would make me a hypocrite like yourself.

I think you are being childish here because you are upset your link wasn't allowed. You need to let it go as it isn't reflecting your point of view well. If you have a problem with something someone else posted, report it.

[DemolitionRed]

I think it's pretty unlikely the RSPCA made it up as they went along.

There is also the study by Massey University mentioned here:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17972-animals-feel-the-pain-of-religious-slaughter/

Also if you read the article it explains a previous study that found in favour of the halaal method may have been flawed according to it's author.

As for what organisation you trust that's kind of moot and doesn't make their information less true.

But you are right in a later post when you say we all hope for the least horrible outcome for the animal. I'm sure that is so.

Good find Jaxie. I'm trying to find the actual study but its clearly some genuine research that has gone on here. Maybe I won't be moving to Kosha meat quite so quickly.

[Kazanne]

They have battery farms for rabbits as well over in Spain, they're awful

One of the worst videos I ever saw was Angora rabbits having their feet tied so they were outstretched and couldn't move, and some moron pulling its fur out to make Angora wool,it was barbaric,I can hear the screams from that rabbit now,worst is when the morans have got what they want,they put the rabbit back in its cage until fur grows again,then the poor thing has to endure it all again,this is their life,they would be better off dead imo.

[Beso]

One of the worst videos I ever saw was Angora rabbits having their feet tied so they were outstretched and couldn't move, and some moron pulling its fur out to make Angora wool,it was barbaric,I can hear the screams from that rabbit now,worst is when the morans have got what they want,they put the rabbit back in its cage until fur grows again,then the poor thing has to endure it all again,this is their life,they would be better off dead imo.

That sounds disgusting..like force fed geese.

[Kazanne]

That sounds disgusting..like force fed geese.

It was horrible Parmy,I would never wear Angora ,I don't think it looks that nice anyway.:wavey: