The pope fights against animal slaughter...ban

[bhsup]

If something isn't compatible at all with our laws, then creating an exception to the laws rather than banning the thing which is incompatible.. would not be right. Laws exist for a reason. If animals are suffering as a result, even more so. If it's something about headgear, we can usually "work around" the laws, cause hats generally don't feel pain.

That is directly translatable as, "Okay Muslims (and Jews and whoever else,) we, your government, are compelling you to tell God to f off. Have a nice day."

Honestly, I will never understand why some people have issues with exemptions for religious issues. Is it primarily an old world/new world divide? A generational divide?

 

[Farm Boy]

I am a bit of a loss how you can get lost within a few short sentence. All I can do is expand, but hopefully that will help.



Both do exactly the same thing until the actual point of death.





So the only difference is you are cutting an animals throat while it is still concious, and then it must die from blood loss. That can't be fun.

It dies pretty fast. Cows die about as slowly as anything and that looks to be less than 30 seconds 90% of the time. I'm comfortable with that. I find it odd that people appeal so hard to stunning procedures these days when the actual reason stunning is usually mandated is not out of concern for the animal but for worker safety instead.

Honestly, I will never understand why some people have issues with exemptions for religious issues. Is it primarily an old world/new world divide? A generational divide?

What is there to understand? It's about ranking how important people consider the spiritual health of their peers. Lots of young secularists don't rate that very highly at all. In defense of such specific young secularists they aren't new and they aren't novel. History is full of people like them.

 

[Tsoate]

I don't care about the reason, if the effect is the animal doesn't feel pain, that's a significant benefit imo. I can't see the justification in ANY extra pain and suffering because of a belief. Mostly because I feel any belief that prescribes suffering for something/one else, isn't worth the paper it is written on.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Honestly, I will never understand why some people have issues with exemptions for religious issues. Is it primarily an old world/new world divide? A generational divide?

Treating people as equals.

Simple over the top example, exaggerated to illustrate my point:
My religion tells me to kill babies. You'd not want me to be an exemption. You're telling me to tell my God to ef off.

The rules that apply to slaughtering animals should apply to anyone, religious or not. If you feel that the rule is to strict, argue for the merits of making it less strict. Simply saying: "religion, so there" does not make a convincing argument. Your first post on the subject was far more convincing than arguing for religious exemption. (except for the first sentence of course)

 

[Lillefix]

That is directly translatable as, "Okay Muslims (and Jews and whoever else,) we, your government, are compelling you to tell God to f off. Have a nice day."

Honestly, I will never understand why some people have issues with exemptions for religious issues. Is it primarily an old world/new world divide? A generational divide?

Let me take another direction at this: Take Judaism. Judging from the old testament there are thousands of things they are obliged to do which are completely unacceptable today(Killing children who disobey their parents is is my favourite example). Most of these immoral things we've somehow managed to cleanse out of their religion the past two thousand years. Why not cleanse out the remaining immoral things(assuming Kosher slaughtering is more immoral than normal slaughter, which I admit is debatable). And if we exempt Jews for everything in their bible. What if some sect want to go back to stoning and so on. Should we stop them?

 

[Borachio]

That is directly translatable as, "Okay Muslims (and Jews and whoever else,) we, your government, are compelling you to tell God to f off. Have a nice day."

Honestly, I will never understand why some people have issues with exemptions for religious issues. Is it primarily an old world/new world divide? A generational divide?

So...how do you feel about female circumcision? Are any practices acceptable simply because they have the approval of some religious group?

But perhaps I misunderstand you. Why should anyone have an exemption because of a religious belief? If a law is justified (if any laws are justified), why should there be any exemptions for religion or any other reason. If a law is unjustified, why have that law at all?

 

[Defiant47]

I don't care about the reason, if the effect is the animal doesn't feel pain, that's a significant benefit imo. I can't see the justification in ANY extra pain and suffering because of a belief. Mostly because I feel any belief that prescribes suffering for something/one else, isn't worth the paper it is written on.

How would you like it if you were forced to pray on a rug to Mecca 5 times a day, every day? That would suck, wouldn't it? Why? It's just denying you your religious beliefs by forcing you to adopt something different. So would refusing Muslim's religious beliefs. Whether or not the belief is "legitimate", the conviction and importance to them is.

Animals do not suffer more from this method of slaughter. They do their best to keep the blades sharpened to minimize any paid. Blood loss isn't a painful death. So I do not believe that any more suffering on average happens than what would happen normally.

 

[Borachio]

Blood loss isn't a painful death!

You are joking, I suppose!

 

[Defiant47]

Blood loss isn't a painful death!

You are joking, I suppose!

I am not.

 

[Kyriakos]

How would you like it if you were forced to pray on a rug to Mecca 5 times a day, every day? That would suck, wouldn't it? Why? It's just denying you your religious beliefs by forcing you to adopt something different. So would refusing Muslim's religious beliefs. Whether or not the belief is "legitimate", the conviction and importance to them is.

Animals do not suffer more from this method of slaughter. They do their best to keep the blades sharpened to minimize any paid. Blood loss isn't a painful death. So I do not believe that any more suffering on average happens than what would happen normally.

Hm, not having the animal stunned would seem to make the animal feel more, if anything.
I mean, would you like to have a root-canal procedure without anesthesia? And i would bet that having your throat cut hurts even more.

But i guess at least then the animal is hanged upside down, so it will feel dizzy and just forget the pain. Much like the infant during circumcision.

 

[Tsoate]

I am not.

Well clearly you are an idiot. How can the act of causing that blood to be lost not cause pain? Do you think i could slice your neck open without you noticing?

Moderator Action: Flaming.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Farm Boy]

if the effect is the animal doesn't feel pain

At this point I would like you to become somewhat more intimately acquainted with the actual process of raising livestock and slaughtering them. The piston guns aren't perfect. They really aren't. The electric cages aren't perfect. They really aren't. Most slaughter is going to involve both the stun and the bleed-out. Depending on how you are stunning the animal isn't always unconscious, it's just sometime too incapacitated to move enough to hinder the process of killing it. Sometimes the stunning wears off before the animal has bled out. Aside from that, much of the trauma that comes from the entire process of slaughtering something does not come from the actual slaughter itself, but from(as El Mac points out) the process leading up to it. This is where the best process has been made. Slaughterhouses that use stunning devices and those that don't can both use Grandin-esque new techniques, especially considering at the end of the line the animals have been cut and hung whether or not a stun gun/cage/shock was used or not.

More interestingly is that you put enough regulations on this sort of thing and the only plants you'll have left are the huge industrial ones that are able to comply. Those very same plants that tend to be the worst at minimizing immediate-slaughter fear and mistakes. Ol' Bubba in the back 40 that probably does an overall pretty good job simply can't do it legally anymore. Two steps backwards for great personal feelings of progress! Virtue of said feelings not relevant.

Well clearly you are an idiot. How can the act of causing that blood to be lost not cause pain? Do you think i could slice your neck open without you noticing?

You are serious I suppose? The example was to a root canal, which over time traumatizes without destroying large quantities of nerve cells. Rapid blood loss itself is not particularly painful. It's dizzying and causes you to pass out. The blood loss itself is very much like being tranquilized or drugged. The cut itself and the restraining devices are going to be the causes of pain in this situation. Large cuts tend to not actually be as immediately painful as people assume they are going to be.

 

[Defiant47]

Hm, not having the animal stunned would seem to make the animal feel more, if anything.
I mean, would you like to have a root-canal without anesthesia? And i would bet that having your throat cut hurts even more.

And you would be wrong, most likely. There's a huge difference. A super-sharp blade cutting through a thin part of your skin will barely register to pain receptors if done right.

But i guess at least then the animal is hung upside down, so it will feel dizzy and just forget the pain. Much like the infant during circumcision.

Indeed, that's part of the effect. It's not "forget" about the pain, it's "not really feel" the pain.

 

[Defiant47]

Well clearly you are an idiot. How can the act of causing that blood to be lost not cause pain? Do you think i could slice your neck open without you noticing?

The laceration causes pain, not the blood loss itself. Have you ever donated blood? Did you feel more and more pain as the blood was pumped out of you? Or did you just feel a little bit of pain as the needle pricked, and then maybe you started feeling a little dizzy?

 

[Borachio]

I think you're might be right about a sharp blade not inflicting much pain.

As for blood-loss, that's really going to hurt. A pint, donated, isn't going to. But you're talking about a fatal blood loss.

A catastrophic loss of blood pressure really hurts, I can tell you.

 

[Defiant47]

I think you're might be right about a sharp blade not inflicting much pain.

As for blood-loss, that's really going to hurt.

We believe blood loss hurts because it's usually accompanied by some sort of injury - the injury hurts, but not the act of losing blood. If you've been shot in the abdomen, or if you have a knife stuck in your side, you'll be losing blood, and in a lot of pain. If you have a needle extracting blood (blood donation), you'll be losing blood, and in no pain.

 

[Tsoate]

At this point I would like you to become somewhat more intimately acquainted with the actual process of raising livestock and slaughtering them. The piston guns aren't perfect. They really aren't. The electric cages aren't perfect. They really aren't. Most slaughter is going to involve both the stun and the bleed-out. Depending on how you are stunning the animal isn't always unconscious, it's just sometime too incapacitated to move enough to hinder the process of killing it. Sometimes the stunning wears off before the animal has bled out. Aside from that, much of the trauma that comes from the entire process of slaughtering something does not come from the actual slaughter itself, but from(as El Mac points out) the process leading up to it. This is where the best process has been made. Slaughterhouses that use stunning devices and those that don't can both use Grandin-esque new techniques, especially considering at the end of the line the animals have been cut and hung whether or not a stun gun/cage/shock was used or not.

More interestingly is that you put enough regulations on this sort of thing and the only plants you'll have left are the huge industrial ones that are able to comply. Those very same plants that tend to be the worst at minimizing immediate-slaughter fear and mistakes. Ol' Bubba in the back 40 that probably does an overall pretty good job simply can't do it legally anymore. Two steps backwards for great personal feelings of progress! Virtue of said feelings not relevant.

Again, you are arguing for when it fails to work. What about an unprofessional neck slicer, one with rough hands or a blunt knife. A pointless argument.

Why not answer what I said rather than return to old, irrelevant ground?

 

[Defiant47]

A pint, donated, isn't going to. But you're talking about a fatal blood loss.

Loss of blood pressure really hurts, I can tell you.

Well with the animal hanging upside down and having lost a lot of blood, it won't really have any feeling left to actually feel the supposed pain.

 

[Tsoate]

The laceration causes pain, not the blood loss itself. Have you ever donated blood? Did you feel more and more pain as the blood was pumped out of you? Or did you just feel a little bit of pain as the needle pricked, and then maybe you started feeling a little dizzy?

The laceration has to occur for the animal to die, thus it is a painful death...Also, a cut hurts, it is not over instantly. Yes, the needle was a pain in my arm! heck, it was sore for a day or so.

 

[Borachio]

No. I don't agree, Defiant.

I've had a severe loss of blood pressure following an operation, and believe me it's not an experience I want to repeat. Imagining that amplified to the point of death doesn't fill me with anything approaching glee.