[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

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]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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?