[user104658]

Originally Posted by Cherie

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.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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.]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

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.]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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

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

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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]

Originally Posted by Cherie

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.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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]

Originally Posted by Cherie

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]

Originally Posted by Cherie

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.]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

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...ous-slaughter/

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

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/adviceandwe...ghter/factfile

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

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

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Cherie

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.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Cherie

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.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Cherie

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"? 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 .