Halal Meat

[AuroRaman]

That's a pretty sweeping statement and I'm not sure it's an accurate one.
Do cod have best friends? Do flies get depressed? Or do we just assign agency to mammals? Even then, is it just the fluffy ones that we can relate to because they're cuter?

As we're being all moralistic, isn't it a moral requirement to kill ducks? They gangrape after all. And gangrape's bad right? What about animals that steal or eat other animals in a manner that makes them suffer? If we're assigning human traits to animals shouldn't we be holding them to the same standards we hold ourselves to? I think we might need to start building some monkey prisons

Are you comparing survival instincts of fellow members of the animal kingdom, by the methods they will kill their prey, to the methods we use to make 'tasty food' that we don't even require to live?

It's too late in the night for me to even get started on the second paragraph!

 

[CelticSpur]

I would find that interesting to know to what extent Halal meat is stunned... 1% 20%... 70%!?

Its why I do not go into Chick King.

I worked in a meat factory in my youth and Halal was the main client..All the beasts were executed the same way by a shot to the brain

 

[scaramanga]

Scara, you're very quick to pass off other peoples posts as opinions and rightly judge them as such. But you're posts reek of, 'this is fact'. It's very unfair to judge other posters' opinions and in some cases, belittle them, then present your posts as factual evidence of why everyone else is wrong.

To send out a blasé statement that all animals don't have feelings as if it is truth is incredibly ignorant in my opinion.

I do understand that posts over the internets can be misconstrued so apologies if I have misunderstood the crux of some of your statements.

You're right, I often do post my opinion as fact. Partly because I'm lazy and partly because I'm used to my decisions being the right answer whether they're right or wrong.

In this case though, I think you may have misread what I posted:

That's a pretty sweeping statement and I'm not sure it's an accurate one.

That is a response to a sweeping statement, not one in itself. A more accurate version of his statement would probably have been "Some animals may have feelings".

Do cod have best friends? Do flies get depressed? Or do we just assign agency to mammals? Even then, is it just the fluffy ones that we can relate to because they're cuter?

Question, question, question. I'm asking for a clarification of said statement, not making any statements of my own.

As we're being all moralistic, isn't it a moral requirement to kill ducks?

Question

They gangrape after all.

Aha! A statement. This one I did briefly Google before typing in case it is just received wisdom, but it does appear that they actually do gangrape (why is this in my autocomplete?!). Wiki even has pictures.

And gangrape's bad right? What about animals that steal or eat other animals in a manner that makes them suffer? If we're assigning human traits to animals shouldn't we be holding them to the same standards we hold ourselves to?

Question, question, question.

I think we might need to start building some monkey prisons.....

Joke - I don't really think we need to build monkey prisons. It would be far too difficult to train up monkey wardens for starters.

My opinion on it would be irrelevant and pointless because I would be food.

If you're asking me from the alien perspective then yes, assuming humans tasted good, eating them would be fine. If keeping them in what you believe to be horrific conditions (I believe we already do that, it's called living up North) makes is cheaper/simpler/better then that's fine too.

This bit is opinion but only because I was directly asked for my opinion.

If you choose to debate this, perhaps do a very quick google/YouTube search on why your opinion is factually/scientifically false before you reply.

I did briefly (and it was very brief because I really do struggle to care about the plight of what ends up on my plate). I did what I normally do with emotive subjects and/or ones where a side that is not known for it's sciencey credentials (animal lovers) start to claim scientific basis, and I prefixed my search with the word skeptic.

Even so, what I mostly get links to are sites campaigning for the fair treatment of animals. That's obviously a terrible source (some of them were even trying to suggest animals are capable of meta-cognition!) so I skipped them and found what seems to be the crux of the argument for many people - animals don't have imagination.

So a goose that's being fattened up ready to sit on my plate with a nice Sauternes doesn't know and can't imagine any other life. It has no way of knowing that it drew the short straw (or the long one handing it the privilege of being my starter) and no way of knowing anything else exists. It may feel discomfort and pain when it gets force fed, but I felt discomfort and pain when I had an earache last week. I felt that things were a bit ****ty for me when I had to get out of bed early to go and earn some money to pay for the bit of goose liver that sits on my plate for dinner. Life won't be perfect for anyone or anything and we are far more important than animals.

 

[scaramanga]

Are you comparing survival instincts of fellow members of the animal kingdom, by the methods they will kill their prey, to the methods we use to make 'tasty food' that we don't even require to live?

It's too late in the night for me to even get started on the second paragraph!

If we're reducing ourselves to things that we require to live, why not ditch electricity? Why not clothes? We don't require houses - we should probably all swap them for mud huts. Shall I sell my car? It's not required for living - it means I won't be able to go to work but I'm not entirely sure earning money is required for living....

How about going to the moon? NASA wasn't required for humans to live - does that mean it shouldn't be there? What about music or art?

 

[AuroRaman]

If we're reducing ourselves to things that we require to live, why not ditch electricity? Why not clothes? We don't require houses - we should probably all swap them for mud huts. Shall I sell my car? It's not required for living - it means I won't be able to go to work but I'm not entirely sure earning money is required for living....

How about going to the moon? NASA wasn't required for humans to live - does that mean it shouldn't be there? What about music or art?

You're right, perhaps I should have been more specific with my post. Of course, much of the above isn't required for living. However, these are feats of human endeavour (electricity/architecture etc) that have, for the most part, made life for plenty of the global population much more comfortable and is a testament to our advancement as a species. I really don't feel that can be equated to killing a crocodile to use its meat for burgers, just because it 'might be a fun thing to serve in a restaurant'. My opinion, of course.

With regards to space travel. I am of the thought process that space travel is actually a requirement. At some point in the next multi-million years, our nearest star is going to expand and destroy our planet, so it's probably best we find an escape route by then, unless we wipe each other and every other species off the face of the planet beforehand Could be a moot point, if scientific history is anything to go by, The Sun turning into a Red Giant may not even be witnessed by our species as perhaps we will have already gone into extinction? Sorry, digressing. I am also all for space travel to one day become a 'norm' for the population as i believe seeing our planet from such a spectacular viewpoint could possibly change people's attitude's towards conservation for the earth and all it's inhabitants.

Music or art? Depends how in-depth one can delve into this. I certainly do feel it is a 'requirement' for many species to have emotive expressions of rhythm and movement. Many species will use sounds and dance as a form of expression, either to express emotion or information. Perhaps when it comes to painting pretty pictures and the like, that could be reserved for us as a species as a 'requirement'. Some people can only express themselves fully through art. I would class that as a requirement for living personally, at least for some of us.

 

[AuroRaman]

You're right, I often do post my opinion as fact. Partly because I'm lazy and partly because I'm used to my decisions being the right answer whether they're right or wrong.

In this case though, I think you may have misread what I posted:



That is a response to a sweeping statement, not one in itself. A more accurate version of his statement would probably have been "Some animals may have feelings".



Question, question, question. I'm asking for a clarification of said statement, not making any statements of my own.



Question



Aha! A statement. This one I did briefly Google before typing in case it is just received wisdom, but it does appear that they actually do gangrape (why is this in my autocomplete?!). Wiki even has pictures.



Question, question, question.



Joke - I don't really think we need to build monkey prisons. It would be far too difficult to train up monkey wardens for starters.



This bit is opinion but only because I was directly asked for my opinion.



I did briefly (and it was very brief because I really do struggle to care about the plight of what ends up on my plate). I did what I normally do with emotive subjects and/or ones where a side that is not known for it's sciencey credentials (animal lovers) start to claim scientific basis, and I prefixed my search with the word skeptic.

Even so, what I mostly get links to are sites campaigning for the fair treatment of animals. That's obviously a terrible source (some of them were even trying to suggest animals are capable of meta-cognition!) so I skipped them and found what seems to be the crux of the argument for many people - animals don't have imagination.

So a goose that's being fattened up ready to sit on my plate with a nice Sauternes doesn't know and can't imagine any other life. It has no way of knowing that it drew the short straw (or the long one handing it the privilege of being my starter) and no way of knowing anything else exists. It may feel discomfort and pain when it gets force fed, but I felt discomfort and pain when I had an earache last week. I felt that things were a bit ****ty for me when I had to get out of bed early to go and earn some money to pay for the bit of goose liver that sits on my plate for dinner. Life won't be perfect for anyone or anything and we are far more important than animals.

Love your work Scara, there's much in here to digest (but not with a pipe down one's gullet!). Need to run into a meeting now but hopefully can reply to some of your questions and points soon

 

[scaramanga]

You're right, perhaps I should have been more specific with my post. Of course, much of the above isn't required for living. However, these are feats of human endeavour (electricity/architecture etc) that have, for the most part, made life for plenty of the global population much more comfortable and is a testament to our advancement as a species. I really don't feel that can be equated to killing a crocodile to use its meat for burgers, just because it 'might be a fun thing to serve in a restaurant'. My opinion, of course.

With regards to space travel. I am of the thought process that space travel is actually a requirement. At some point in the next multi-million years, our nearest star is going to expand and destroy our planet, so it's probably best we find an escape route by then, unless we wipe each other and every other species off the face of the planet beforehand Could be a moot point, if scientific history is anything to go by, The Sun turning into a Red Giant may not even be witnessed by our species as perhaps we will have already gone into extinction? Sorry, digressing. I am also all for space travel to one day become a 'norm' for the population as i believe seeing our planet from such a spectacular viewpoint could possibly change people's attitude's towards conservation for the earth and all it's inhabitants.

Music or art? Depends how in-depth one can delve into this. I certainly do feel it is a 'requirement' for many species to have emotive expressions of rhythm and movement. Many species will use sounds and dance as a form of expression, either to express emotion or information. Perhaps when it comes to painting pretty pictures and the like, that could be reserved for us as a species as a 'requirement'. Some people can only express themselves fully through art. I would class that as a requirement for living personally, at least for some of us.

I agree with pretty much all of that. Where I suspect our opinions will diverge is that I believe intensive farming is also a human achievement - it's enabled us to get a lot of (varied) food to a lot of people pretty much whenever they want it. That, for me, is an amazing achievement.

 

[DTA]

I agree with pretty much all of that. Where I suspect our opinions will diverge is that I believe intensive farming is also a human achievement - it's enabled us to get a lot of (varied) food to a lot of people pretty much whenever they want it. That, for me, is an amazing achievement.

So is the nuclear bomb

 

[DTA]

You're right, I often do post my opinion as fact. Partly because I'm lazy and partly because I'm used to my decisions being the right answer whether they're right or wrong.

In this case though, I think you may have misread what I posted:



That is a response to a sweeping statement, not one in itself. A more accurate version of his statement would probably have been "Some animals may have feelings".



Question, question, question. I'm asking for a clarification of said statement, not making any statements of my own.



Question



Aha! A statement. This one I did briefly Google before typing in case it is just received wisdom, but it does appear that they actually do gangrape (why is this in my autocomplete?!). Wiki even has pictures.



Question, question, question.



Joke - I don't really think we need to build monkey prisons. It would be far too difficult to train up monkey wardens for starters.



This bit is opinion but only because I was directly asked for my opinion.



I did briefly (and it was very brief because I really do struggle to care about the plight of what ends up on my plate). I did what I normally do with emotive subjects and/or ones where a side that is not known for it's sciencey credentials (animal lovers) start to claim scientific basis, and I prefixed my search with the word skeptic.

Even so, what I mostly get links to are sites campaigning for the fair treatment of animals. That's obviously a terrible source (some of them were even trying to suggest animals are capable of meta-cognition!) so I skipped them and found what seems to be the crux of the argument for many people - animals don't have imagination.

So a goose that's being fattened up ready to sit on my plate with a nice Sauternes doesn't know and can't imagine any other life. It has no way of knowing that it drew the short straw (or the long one handing it the privilege of being my starter) and no way of knowing anything else exists. It may feel discomfort and pain when it gets force fed, but I felt discomfort and pain when I had an earache last week. I felt that things were a bit ****ty for me when I had to get out of bed early to go and earn some money to pay for the bit of goose liver that sits on my plate for dinner. Life won't be perfect for anyone or anything and we are far more important than animals.

You dismiss the ability of some( you see what I did there?)animals too easily, I don't think that meta cognition to a simple level is beyond all Animals... Especially in terms of tactics, adaptations to said tactics etc, again to a simple level. However all humans don't think to the same level.

As for imagination or lack there of, where is it proven that animals don't have one? What makes an imagination?

 

[scaramanga]

So is the nuclear bomb

Which ended large scale conflict (possibly forever).

 

[DTA]

Which ended large scale conflict (possibly forever).

That's a big statement, especially considering the very short period of time (from a historical perspective)from when the have been invented till today.

 

[scaramanga]

That's a big statement, especially considering the very short period of time (from a historical perspective)from when the have been invented till today.

Well there were major conflicts every decade or two before them. It's been 70 now and the chances of major conflict look smaller and smaller (see the UN taking it in the **** from Putin for example).

 

[DTA]

Well there were major conflicts every decade or two before them. It's been 70 now and the chances of major conflict look smaller and smaller (see the UN taking it in the **** from Putin for example).

Other factors post ww2 have also come in to play, also how would you define what is a 'large scale' conflict

 

[spursman17]

What? The last part of my post was a general point, in fact the whole post was basically a general point.

The bit that applies to you (and everyone else who has this similar way of thinking) is that if you were that bothered by animal rights, you wouldn't be bothered by what happens in the final few seconds of its life but what happens throughout its whole life.

I haven't eaten meat in a while because I consider our conduct towards animals while rearing them for slaughter to be despicable, whether I'm buying a caged hen or an organic, free range one. I've been to some of these 'reputable' farms and the conditions of the animals are still not what I consider acceptable. That was finally pushed me over the edge.

Yes I have seen those threads (and we have actually talked about this topic before) so no, I'm not jumping in without knowing the full facts at all. Only a fool would deny that you spend more effort than most in trying to source your food. It still doesn't make it incredibly hypocritical that you're this bothered by halal/ kosher meat (and the final few seconds of the animal's life) and still willing to eat meat, even if it is the upscale, 'reputable' farms.

Humans have eaten meat for thousands of years. Your very own teeth have evolved for that very purpose. I agree with you that animals should be cared for throughout their life but I do not hold people to blame for their lack of education. I blame society.

Here in the UK we live a fast paced lifestyle. Working long hours, kids to look after and constantly trying to make ends meet. People see a piece of meat in the shops without making the connection to the once living animal. This is not the people's fault, but the education systems. Kids are shyed away from 'slaughter' or are not told where meat comes from to 'protect' them. Truth is we are damaging them and the industry suffers from the neglect and lack of people's understanding of the matter.

I come from an Italian background and my family there have their own animals that they keep for consumption. Kids are brought up seeing what goes on and by doing so they have respect for the animal and understand that a piece of ham in a shop was part of a living creature and not a 'product' made in some factory somewhere from nothing.

People need to be educated from a young age and children shown the reality of the World rather than shyed away. This does more damage than good.

This is why many struggling people would go into a supermarket, see two whole chickens and pick out the cheapest. They see a product and they see a price without much consideration for anything else.

 

[scaramanga]

Other factors post ww2 have also come in to play, also how would you define what is a 'large scale' conflict

Probably the most simple description is one where more than one side can put up a fight.