[bitontheslide]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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

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

[TomC]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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

This is a very good point.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by TomC

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

Good for you.

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

Both methods are inhumane as ****.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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

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

[TomC]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Good for you.

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

Both methods are inhumane as ****.

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

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

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by TomC

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

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

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

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

[Jordan.]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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

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

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

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Jordan.

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

Sums it up in a nutshell

[TomC]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Sums it up in a nutshell

Agreed.

[RichardG]

Originally Posted by Jordan.

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

exactly

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Jordan.

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

Because the difference is negligible and the animal suffers regardless.

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

[SocietyIsRuined]

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

[parmnion]

Originally Posted by Jordan.

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

spot on.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by SocietyIsRuined

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

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

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

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Because the difference is negligible and the animal suffers regardless.

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

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

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

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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

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

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

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

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

That is so sad

[Cal.]

Why don't all of you just stop eating meat

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm so hungry

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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

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

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

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

I'm so hungry

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

But if I do, I totally agree.

[Princess]

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

[parmnion]

Originally Posted by Princess

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

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

[billy123]

Originally Posted by SocietyIsRuined

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

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

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by parmnion

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

Incorrectly.

[Jamie89]

Found this online:

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

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

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


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

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


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

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



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



That's all anyone is saying!

Originally Posted by bobnot

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

Noone is being racist