[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Cherie

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

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

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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

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

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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

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

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

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Cherie

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

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

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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

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

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Cherie

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

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

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

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Cherie

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

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

[Kizzy]

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

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

The interpretation and practice of halal slaughter varies widely throughout Islam

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

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

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

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

http://indy100.independent.co.uk/art...y--ZJx_7ZbKWMb

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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

It happens at some barbaric festival in Spain

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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

[/url]

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

[Kizzy]

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

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Cherie

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




It happens at some barbaric festival in Spain

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

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

[TomC]

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

[RichardG]

Originally Posted by TomC

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

I don't think that's hypocritical

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by TomC

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

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

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

[bots]

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

[RichardG]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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

Can't argue with science

[TomC]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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

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

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

[Amy Jade]

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

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by TomC

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

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

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

[TomC]

Criticising my opinion is what led me to the conclusion.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by TomC

Criticising my opinion is what led me to the conclusion.

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

[Jordan.]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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

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

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

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Jordan.

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

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

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

[TomC]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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

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