[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.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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?

[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?

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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 "

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 . 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 .

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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

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 . 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 .

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

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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

I 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.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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.

[Vicky.]

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.

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

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

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 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?

[Niamh.]

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.

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

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

[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.

[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.

[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

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by 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

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

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Withano

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

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by 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

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

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

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

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