It looks like the Dutch have voted to ban ritual animal slaughter (http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2011/06/28/dutch-vote-to-ban-ritual-animal-slaughter-jews-and-muslims-unite-in-protest/) which I think is fantastic. We had this discussion last year, and I think all but a few people were of the mind that yes, we as a society should ban the practice.

It's sickening to some of us.

On an interesting side note, Jews and Muslims have joined forces in attempting to overturn the ruling - they think banning the reading stone age religious texts while slitting an animals throat to appease some long forgotten bronze age god is an affront to "multiculturalism". It's good to know that as the rest of humanity moves forward, these two can find some common ground in their religious zealotry.

This is what I was thinking. Maybe we could legalize this: if you want a burger, you have to do the ritualized animal slaughter yourself. You personally read the texts, you look the animal in the eyes for a good 1 minute, and you go on ahead and praise your god as you slit it's throat yourself. Then you carve off your bit of the animal for your burger. Maybe that will bring home the inanity of certain religious "sacraments".




The Dutch parliament voted on Tuesday to ban ritual slaughter of animals, a move strongly opposed by the country’s Muslim and Jewish minorities, but left a loophole that might let religious butchering continue. The bill by the small Animal Rights Party, the first such group in Europe to win seats in a national parliament, passed the lower house of parliament by 116 votes to 30. It must be approved by the upper house before becoming law. It stipulates that livestock must be stunned before being slaughtered, contrary to the Muslim halal and Jewish kosher laws that require animals to be fully conscious.

“This way of killing causes unnecessary pain to animals. Religious freedom cannot be unlimited,” said Marianne Thieme, head of the Animal Rights Party, said before the vote. “For us religious freedom stops where human or animal suffering begins.”

The loophole is that they can continue ritualistic slaughter if they can prove that the animals are not suffering more than in conventional slaughter.

The loophole is that they can continue ritualistic slaughter if they can prove that the animals are not suffering more than in conventional slaughter.

I have no problem with a Rabbi mumbling while an animal is slaughtered, as long as the slaughter meets the same standards found in regular abattoirs. And the Rabbi is wearing a coverall, wellies, has his hair covered, and meets the same hygiene standards as the slaughterman.

I have no problem with a Rabbi mumbling while an animal is slaughtered, as long as the slaughter meets the same standards found in regular abattoirs. And the Rabbi is wearing a coverall, wellies, has his hair covered, and meets the same hygiene standards as the slaughterman.
I don't think the animals are concerned about the hygiene :D

Definitely a positive development. Kudos to the Dutch.

(Edit: I'm sure Sam will be along momentarily to explain why this is sekritly a bad thing.)

I don't think the animals are concerned about the hygiene :D

No, but I am concerned about the bacteria that may lurk in a Hasidic Jews dreadlocks. So they need to be covered up.

No, but I am concerned about the bacteria that may lurk in a Hasidic Jews dreadlocks. So they need to be covered up.

I would be too if I was eating halal meat. But I don't so.. :p
The whole thing is really about unnecessary suffering of the animals though. I'm not sure but I don't think hygiene was an issue in this case.

I would be too if I was eating halal meat. But I don't so.. :p
The whole thing is really about unnecessary suffering of the animals though. I'm not sure but I don't think hygiene was an issue in this case.

Oh I agree completely. Standards of butchery should be the same, irrespective or religious viewpoints. Statistics show however that 90% of Halal meat is actually stunned first, contrary to the requirements, so it's a great big bunch of hypocrisy anyway.

The importance of it, then, is that the ethical gap has been closed.

I've been wondering for some time now whether countries would start doing this. I think the burden of proof for the claim that slitting an animal's throat doesn't cause it immense suffering, should be with those making these claims, not the animals. Those who don't like it and feel ritual torture must be part of their meat eating, will in the future simply have to go vegetarian.

I'm sure for most people, the religious logic will eventually agree with the practical common sense choice, and they will find some reason why it's ok to stun the animal before killing it, if they didn't think they had such a reason before. The loudest complainants against these humane slaughter laws will be those whose livelihoods and community standing are dependent on archaic traditions.

P.S. to the original poster: The stone age religious text reading should be a separate issue- this is about animal suffering, and I don't think being forced to listen to prayers is what's causing said suffering.

Slightly off topic, but I think it's even MORE relevant how the animal spends it's life, not just the 30 seconds how it dies.

For example, I used to hold hunting in low regard. Then upon further thought, I realized that--at least--the wild animal got to spend its life in the environment it enjoyed and to which it was best adapted. The fact that it may suffer the last minute or so of its life is distasteful to me, but when I consider that farm raised animals often times spend their lives in horrific conditions, but die relatively painlessly (by comparison), I wonder what is the better trade off?

If I were given the choice, I'd choose freedom for all my life and a painful death, rather than confinement all my life and a quick death. Having one's throat slit cannot be pleasant, but more important to me is how the beast spent its life.

Not to get up on my soap box here, but this is the leading reason why I buy exclusively meat from two places (a butcher and Trader Joe's) which is labeled "free range". In the case of beef, eggs and chicken, I need not look far, as my sister raises the beasts in small numbers (no more than 10 head of cattle at a time and a few dozen chickens) and has a free range (and well covered) chicken coup. The critters roam a very larch chunk of land and get treated well while they live. She has the mobile slaughter house come out and take care of them on her property.

While not all people have access to family members, with a little work, one can find humanely raised and slaughtered meat. (I tried to give up meat recently and failed. . . I'm too much the carnivore)

~String

While not all people have access to family members, with a little work, one can find humanely raised and slaughtered meat. (I tried to give up meat recently and failed. . . I'm too much the carnivore)

Forget free range, I would eat meat cloned in a protein vat if it was half decent, to spare the animals from even my slightest impositions. Protein vats not yet on the horizon, though, I'm of the opinion that animal welfare laws should forbid both painful deaths and inhumane living conditions. Glad to see it's an issue that's actually being taken seriously for a change- for a long time I've thought the entrenchment of religious rights would win over and blind people into thinking there's some way to cut an animal's throat and bleed it to death before they notice. Yeah, the hell they don't notice.

speaking of protein vats: Japanese scientist creates protein rich 'poop burger' (http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20072270-71/japanese-scientist-creates-poop-burger-surely-not/)....only in Japan would they create a poop burger (you didn't ask where the protein came from did you!?!? Vegetarian is starting to look pretty good about now eh?)

Of course the core issue is the welfare of animals. But, I also think it's important that we shine a light on this well known, little experienced, practice of reading some religious text while silting an animals throat open and bleeding it out as a religious sacrifice it to a long lost and forgotten (by most) bronze age god. Is it just me, or is that going to be unsettling to most people who "think" hala meat is important to them :shrug: I'm more than confident that when given the choice, a large number of theist's will either give up meat or belief that hala meat is all that an important an aspect of their belief.

Thus, we all move forward a step ... together :)

I would be too if I was eating halal meat. But I don't so.. :p
The whole thing is really about unnecessary suffering of the animals though. I'm not sure but I don't think hygiene was an issue in this case.

many people in the UK are eating it without even knowing because the UK government is too wimpish and frightened to tell us. Our school kids have been eating it for quite some time now. :mad:

Maybe the Dutch should just be vegetarians. What difference does it make how you kill a beast if your object is to kill and eat beast? Hey, maybe they should have free-range Halal meat. I hear that's very humane. Unlike those factory fed animals under which beast living conditions are less than savory. What those beasts need is one good chop on the neck! Or a good chicken chocking. Or maybe we can give them tranquilizers and hold their hands while they enter into a peaceful death.

So its ok to slash an animals throat and let it lie there bleeding to death, instead of stunning it first so it suffers no pain!!!

So its ok to slash an animals throat and let it lie there bleeding to death, instead of stunning it first so it suffers no pain!!!

Up until recently it was thought that lethal injection of the convicted was a nice free-of-guilt way of killing a human and now they've discovered its not painless or humane at all. So...

How do we know if stunning and then slashing is really pain free and humane for the animal? I mean from the animals point of view of course.

Hmmm that's interesting, I always thought if I had to choose a method of death, lethal injection would be up there near the top. Not to be intentionally morbid, but did they hook someone up and watch their pain receptors firing off as they died?

Anyhow if stunning before slashing isn't a humane way of killing animals, then just bring out the guillotine. I don't buy for one second that bleeding them to death is the most humane possible way to do it while not spoiling the meat.

Hmmm that's interesting, I always thought if I had to choose a method of death, lethal injection would be up there near the top. Not to be intentionally morbid, but did they hook someone up and watch their pain receptors firing off as they died?

Anyhow if stunning before slashing isn't a humane way of killing animals, then just bring out the guillotine. I don't buy for one second that bleeding them to death is the most humane possible way to do it while not spoiling the meat.

No. The two steps of the the three step procedure has been carried out for specific surgeries and it was discovered that the initial phase anesthetic would wear off and the person was stuck on the table unable to move but was cognizant with an incredible burning sensation which comes from the second injection.

As far as the bacteria or meat going off or whatever the concerns, most people are not eating halal or kosher, if these groups don't mind and are not having a high incidence of poisoning I don't see why anyone else would be concerned.

But again I would like to know how we know stunning is the most humane way of killing an animal? Does stunning render the animal unconscious or simply immobile? If its simply immobile then its no more humane than the lethal injection which they've discovered doesn't really work.

MY point is that many people are eating this halal crap without even knowing it. Here in the UK especially, because our politicians and goody goodies are to damn scared to upset the muslems.

I've been wondering for some time now whether countries would start doing this. I think the burden of proof for the claim that slitting an animal's throat doesn't cause it immense suffering, should be with those making these claims, not the animals. Those who don't like it and feel ritual torture must be part of their meat eating, will in the future simply have to go vegetarian.

I'm sure for most people, the religious logic will eventually agree with the practical common sense choice, and they will find some reason why it's ok to stun the animal before killing it, if they didn't think they had such a reason before. The loudest complainants against these humane slaughter laws will be those whose livelihoods and community standing are dependent on archaic traditions.

P.S. to the original poster: The stone age religious text reading should be a separate issue- this is about animal suffering, and I don't think being forced to listen to prayers is what's causing said suffering.

ummm slitting an animals throat is standed practice for the slaughter of sheep. I have watched 3 sheep slaughtered on a large sheep station and the way it was done was the throat was cut to the spine, then the neck was broken and the whole head was cut off, the legs were snapped and the animal hung upside down to bleed out.

MY point is that many people are eating this halal crap without even knowing it. Here in the UK especially, because our politicians and goody goodies are to damn scared to upset the muslems.

But has anyone been any incidence of anyone needing hospitalization because of halal or kosher meat? The Dutch are not making the argument that kosher and halal are dangerous to people but not inhumane for the animal.

I agree with the dutch

ummm slitting an animals throat is standed practice for the slaughter of sheep. I have watched 3 sheep slaughtered on a large sheep station and the way it was done was the throat was cut to the spine, then the neck was broken and the whole head was cut off, the legs were snapped and the animal hung upside down to bleed out.

Yeah, but the question is how quickly does the sheep die? Is its head severed nearly instantly, or is it left there to bleed in unimaginable agony for several seconds or longer before dying? If it's allowed to thrash around for a while before dying after the initial cut, then all I can say is that's really f*cked up, and if the butchers doing this wouldn't want the same thing done to them in kind, they shouldn't be enabling it to happen to other creatures in the first place.

Seriously, if you have to blow the thing's head off with a shotgun to spare it some pain, then do it. If there's some kind of animal that needs to be tortured to death in order for the meat to taste good, we shouldn't be consuming it.

No. The two steps of the the three step procedure has been carried out for specific surgeries and it was discovered that the initial phase anesthetic would wear off and the person was stuck on the table unable to move but was cognizant with an incredible burning sensation which comes from the second injection.

Last year I had a very common, routine surgery, but they had to cut me open pretty deep and immobilize me in all kinds of ways... It crossed my mind several times, both before and after, that the surgeons and nurses could have gone totally medieval on me if they really wanted to and weren't afraid of the repercussions, and I would have been completely powerless to stop them, no matter whether I was awake or unconscious. That thought was scary enough in itself, but the idea of being semi-conscious and immobile while still feeling all the pain...

That having been said, I had my wisdom teeth cut out about a decade ago, and when they put me out and I woke up with absolutely no sensation of the passing time (I thought they were just getting started when they wheeled me out of the OR), I was like "Ahhhh, so this is what it would feel like if I died and got stored in a freezer for 1000 years 'til someone revived me... you don't feel f*ck all." Similar experience from my surgery last year, I was doped up real good so I never felt much pain even after waking up from the surgery. Surely there must be a humane way of pulling this off- they could have doped me up and then stuck my head in a guillotine and I would have had ignorant dreams of bliss from start to finish.


As far as the bacteria or meat going off or whatever the concerns, most people are not eating halal or kosher, if these groups don't mind and are not having a high incidence of poisoning I don't see why anyone else would be concerned.

Yep. If I was a religious man of either faith, I'd hit back by going vegetarian and then demanding that the rest of society treat their animals with the same degree of newfound compassion, i.e. refrain from eating or killing them altogether. As it stands, the vast bulk of humanity, including secular Jews and Muslims, has not shown any additional ill effects from consuming non-hallal/non-kosher produce, nor are religiously observant people being asked to treat their animals differently from their secular societies at large. Vegetarianism is a biologically viable alternative if need be, and the only reason this subject has even become an issue for discussion, is out of compassion for the animals and their welfare, not out of a desire to undermine the religious faith of their consumers.


But again I would like to know how we know stunning is the most humane way of killing an animal? Does stunning render the animal unconscious or simply immobile? If its simply immobile then its no more humane than the lethal injection which they've discovered doesn't really work.

Perfectly good questions worthy of systematic study. We can always argue about the meaning of pain and the way other creatures might perceive it, and boil it down to some kind of undecidable existential proposition, but we should make some effort to do what we can based on our most sophisticated knowledge, just as we make these efforts for fellow human beings rather than just bashing their skulls in for sport.

LSimilar experience from my surgery last year, I was doped up real good so I never felt much pain even after waking up from the surgery. Surely there must be a humane way of pulling this off-

It's certainly easy enough to anaesthetize animals before slaughter - veterinary surgery has been around for a long time - but it presents a serious problem: the resulting meat is all full of drugs and their metabolic by-products.

It's certainly easy enough to anaesthetize animals before slaughter - veterinary surgery has been around for a long time

Actually on that subject, I hear anesthesia is very dangerous for animals, at least in the case of pet dogs. Many owners choose to forgo medical treatment for their pets simply because they find the risk isn't worth the benefit.


but it presents a serious problem: the resulting meat is all full of drugs and their metabolic by-products.

As I mentioned, if it's problematic to anesthetize the animals, then let them have the shotgun or the guillotine. A quick slice from the guillotine or a similar machine... I don't see how it could be any worse than slitting the jugular, and if that somehow causes the animal's muscles to tense in a way that spoils the quality of the meat, maybe we should reconsider eating the animal altogether. I have to wonder about lobster, for instance- I think it's sublimely delicious with melted butter, but from my personal experience watching people boil it alive to keep the meat sweet, I may need to re-evaluate my preferences.

@CptBork

Do you, or anyone else for that matter, know whether its specifically against halal or kosher law to stun and then go about the rest of their ritual? That way they could comply with both religious and local standards.

ARRGH! The lobster. Do you remember the David Foster Wallace piece 'Consider the Lobster'? He makes a good case for how boiling is inhumane to the crustacean as well as keeping them all cooped up in tanks:

http://www.gourmet.com/magazine/2000s/2004/08/consider_the_lobster?currentPage=1

I found it ironic that someone who had such compassion for a simple crustacean would go on to commit suicide...ah well. Interesting writer he was.

Actually on that subject, I hear anesthesia is very dangerous for animals, at least in the case of pet dogs. Many owners choose to forgo medical treatment for their pets simply because they find the risk isn't worth the benefit.

It's dangerous to humans, as well - although I don't see how this applies in a situation where you're explicitly planning to kill the animal once anaesthetized. If you accidentally administer an overdose of aneasthesia and that kills them, well... so what? I guess organ or tissue damage could be an issue in the quality of the resultant meat, but then the very presence of anaesthetics is already a problem there.



As I mentioned, if it's problematic to anesthetize the animals, then let them have the shotgun or the guillotine. A quick slice from the guillotine or a similar machine...

The stun-bolt systems in widespread use now are basically a refined version of that same approach.



I don't see how it could be any worse than slitting the jugular, and if that somehow causes the animal's muscles to tense in a way that spoils the quality of the meat, maybe we should reconsider eating the animal altogether.

The thing with these ritual slaughter methods is that they're all about draining out the blood of the animal for superstitious reasons. That's why they slit the throat. They aren't primarily motivated by humanitarian concerns. And the people who are really into it are working in terms of received law, not reasoned practice.



I have to wonder about lobster, for instance- I think it's sublimely delicious with melted butter, but from my personal experience watching people boil it alive to keep the meat sweet, I may need to re-evaluate my preferences.

When it comes to crustaceans, it's unclear whether they even experience pain to begin with. Not much in the way of a brain, there. Doesn't really keep me up at night, although I don't eat much lobster to begin with.

Do you, or anyone else for that matter, know whether its specifically against halal or kosher law to stun and then go about the rest of their ritual? That way they could comply with both religious and local standards.

It's apparently a matter of some debate - motivated exactly by the desire to split the difference that you describe.



ARRGH! The lobster. Do you remember the David Foster Wallace piece 'Consider the Lobster'? He makes a good case for how boiling is inhumane to the crustacean as well as keeping them all cooped up in tanks:


Yeah, classic DFW stuff there. Although I prefer his fiction - rereading Infinite Jest right now.



I found it ironic that someone who had such compassion for a simple crustacean would go on to commit suicide

Why? Perhaps he was too sensitive for this world? Couldn't cope with the agonies of lifelong depression? Suicide can be an act of compassion, if one's suffering is great enough and permanent enough.

@CptBork

Do you, or anyone else for that matter, know whether its specifically against halal or kosher law to stun and then go about the rest of their ritual? That way they could comply with both religious and local standards.

Yeah, I read that it can't be done this way and still comply with the traditional rules, hence the reason for all the fuss- there's not much room for compromise here. Apparently it's not generally considered kosher/halal unless the animal has been perfectly healthy and intact up until the point where it bleeds to death, and amongst most of those who practice these traditions, stunning the animal even a few seconds prior to its death constitutes the slaughter of an unhealthy animal, rendering it unfit for consumption. Well if they want to bleed a cucumber to death, I don't think anyone will have an issue with it, so that's their out.

It's apparently a matter of some debate - motivated exactly by the desire to split the difference that you describe.



Yeah, classic DFW stuff there. Although I prefer his fiction - rereading Infinite Jest right now.



Why? Perhaps he was too sensitive for this world? Couldn't cope with the agonies of lifelong depression? Suicide can be an act of compassion, if one's suffering is great enough and permanent enough.

*off-topic*

Well I guess so but it really pissed me off. He was really quite interesting and at the top of his game. I do think that suicide can be an act of compassion but at this age I would have hoped he would have tried every other avenue to help ease his depression than doing what he did.

I too prefer his fiction but have to be honest that I have never been able to get through Infinite Jest, I find it a really difficult read but maybe it was the wrong time for me and I should go back to it. Had the same problem with Joyce's 'Ulysses' What I was able to enjoy was 'Brief Interviews with Hideous Men'.

*On topic*

I do think is that its interesting that all of a sudden animal advocates would suddenly focus on halal and kosher meat. Is it that they woke up one day and considered this? Why all of a sudden is there this concern? This is the one question no article has yet answered.

I do think is that its interesting that all of a sudden animal advocates would suddenly focus on halal and kosher meat. Is it that they woke up one day and considered this? Why all of a sudden is there this concern? This is the one question no article has yet answered.

It's a pretty interesting coincidence, because it was only a few months ago that I myself learned about the full extent of the slaughtering rituals and what the animals must be forced to endure, and I started wondering how much longer such practices would be tolerated in westernized societies. There have been some scandals recently with some major kosher slaughterhouses in America exposed for systematic animal abuse, i.e. if they botched the slaughter, they would still let the animal slowly bleed to death so they wouldn't have to throw it out. Perhaps these scandals helped draw attention to the general rituals of kosher/halal slaughter, and more people like myself came to realize that the practice goes well above and beyond simple things like not eating pork.

I do think that suicide can be an act of compassion but at this age I would have hoped he would have tried every other avenue to help ease his depression than doing what he did.

He did - that was the problem. He tried to go off of the (side-effect heavy) drugs he'd been on for years and years and years, in favor of some newer, gentler stuff, and it didn't pan out.



I too prefer his fiction but have to be honest that I have never been able to get through Infinite Jest, I find it a really difficult read but maybe it was the wrong time for me and I should go back to it.

It seems to be one of those books that often is a person's first "Difficult Book." Having since read a bunch of more difficult books - and grokked the basic elements of Infinite Jest after finishing it the first time around - my opinion this time is that it's actually very tight, direct and readable. It just doesn't seem that way the first time through, because you don't see how all of these different elements are going to relate to one another. Plus he goes on about the fictionary anti-confluential avante garde movements, which makes you start to question whether there is actually any confluence in Infinite Jest. But this is a red herring - it just takes patience to get there. My recommendation is to take it as a series of well-written vignettes the first time around, without worrying too much about the deeper structure and themes, then spend a year or two digesting that and come back and read it again. Also, use at least 2 bookmarks so you can keep your place in both the endnotes and the main text.



Had the same problem with Joyce's 'Ulysses'

Joyce is in a whole other category, along with the nastier bits of Faulkner.

Take a whack at some of the big Pinchon or Rushdie novels, and then come back to DFW. I predict you'll find him extremely approachable and direct, by comparison.



What I was able to enjoy was 'Brief Interviews with Hideous Men'.

That's a good one too. I just watched the movie on Netflix - surprisingly good. I didn't think they'd be able to pull it off, but ended up pretty pleased at the result.



I do think is that its interesting that all of a sudden animal advocates would suddenly focus on halal and kosher meat. Is it that they woke up one day and considered this? Why all of a sudden is there this concern? This is the one question no article has yet answered.

The fact that this is in Holland is a big clue - it's clearly part of the whole anti-Muslim-immigrant reactionary thing going on in various European countries lately.

The fact that this is in Holland is a big clue - it's clearly part of the whole anti-Muslim-immigrant reactionary thing going on in various European countries lately.

Hmmmm I actually didn't consider a connection between the recent anti-immigration movements and this slaughter issue, but I think you might be on to something. Regardless, I have always felt that it's important to establish the prevalence of secular law over religious law in all matters of state governance- one's religious freedoms should not include the right to cause unnecessary suffering to other beings.

Yeah, but the question is how quickly does the sheep die? Is its head severed nearly instantly, or is it left there to bleed in unimaginable agony for several seconds or longer before dying? If it's allowed to thrash around for a while before dying after the initial cut, then all I can say is that's really f*cked up, and if the butchers doing this wouldn't want the same thing done to them in kind, they shouldn't be enabling it to happen to other creatures in the first place.

Seriously, if you have to blow the thing's head off with a shotgun to spare it some pain, then do it. If there's some kind of animal that needs to be tortured to death in order for the meat to taste good, we shouldn't be consuming it.

Actually cutting the 2 carotids is quite humaine. Your forgetting that we arnt talking about death by a thousand cuts, or death by cutting off a limb
Once you sever the carotid arteries no blood reaches the brain, the brain can't store ATP therefore unconsciousness is quite rapid, then brain death follows. Snapping the spine is no quicker, infact it may actually be slower because the heart still beats under its own intrinsic rate

For example, I used to hold hunting in low regard. Then upon further thought, I realized that--at least--the wild animal got to spend its life in the environment it enjoyed and to which it was best adapted.

Are you stupid, do you know how hard it is to live in nature? To give you an idea a domestic cat lives for up to 20 years, as feral cat lives half as long or less. Once you get too old you die of starvation or something eats you, life in the wild is fucking hard and nature is completely unforgiving! You try it, run out naked into a jungle and try to live in nature with nothing but your foreskin!

Now sure life in a factory farm is probably not much better, but a middle ground like an open pasture farm is fucking paradise in comparison to a factory farm or nature. All the food you can eat, protection from predators, an endless supply of sex (depend on species and gender), shelter, medical care, the only down side is once you reach a certain age they put a spike through your brain killing you instantly and then use your body for assorted products like leather, glue, meat, pillow stuffing, etc.


Up until recently it was thought that lethal injection of the convicted was a nice free-of-guilt way of killing a human and now they've discovered its not painless or humane at all. So...

How do we know if stunning and then slashing is really pain free and humane for the animal? I mean from the animals point of view of course.

Well the brain feels pain right? Well if I blast a large hole in the brain severing its for the spinal column and also completely eviscerating the lower brain stem which is need to orchestrating the higher functions and thus consciousness, then that should be a painless death. We have people who suffer brain damage who can testify to the painlessness of having chunks of your brain destroyed.

I am also an advocate of nitrogen asphyxiation for death penalties. Its the only extrication system that can be tried non-lethally, we can have you huff nitrogen until you black out than immediately resuscitate you with oxygen, and you cane report if it hurt. People who have huffed helium can also accurate report how painless it is: you just start to feel light headed then you black out.

Yeah that's very true, why not just asphyxiate the animals with nitrogen or helium? These elements are abundant in the air, so I can't see them causing any form of unnatural or toxic contamination. Most of the air is nitrogen anyway, in fact- you just effectively take away all the oxygen so the brain doesn't get its juice, even though it thinks it's breathing like normal and doesn't report any distress.

Yeah that's very true, why not just asphyxiate the animals with nitrogen or helium? These elements are abundant in the air, so I can't see them causing any form of unnatural or toxic contamination. Most of the air is nitrogen anyway, in fact- you just effectively take away all the oxygen so the brain doesn't get its juice, even though it thinks it's breathing like normal and doesn't report any distress.

i dont know, superfically i cant see any contamination issues and helium is used in euthanasia as a peaceful way to die. Its disadvantages in that method (that you need a sealed room and family and friends cant hold the pts hand) shouldnt be an issue with animal slaughter but there could be other issues with slaughter. Some i can guess at would be cost (both redesigning the abitour and the costs to buy the gasses), an inability to bleed out the animal straight away (resulting in higher blood content in the mussles and organs), speed (its much slower than killing by trauma)

BTW, your shot gun to the head doesnt garentiee instant death either. Actually there are many examples of humans living for miniutes or longer after taking a shot gun blast to the face

BTW, your shot gun to the head doesnt garentiee instant death either. Actually there are many examples of humans living for minutes or longer after taking a shot gun blast to the face

Yeah in slaughter they don't use a gun, for sheep they use a full pithing gun which they place at the back of the animals head and it drives a rod straight through the skull at the intersection of the last neck vertebra and the skull. Its very precise and effective, instant paralysis and probably total lose of consciousness from the brain damage.

Alternates to the pithing gun is electroshock. In humans after electroshock they usually have no memory of the event even though their face and grunts suggested it was extremely painful. Of course electoshock may not kill, rather while the animal is unconscious a pithing rod is pounded into their brain. Of course a full pithing gun does all these steps but for animals larger than sheep it has not been very practical to make a pithing gun capable of drilling that deep. I would assume the device would be very large and unwieldy. Instead they may use a pithing gun to drill a hole to the cows brain from the forehead of the cow, and then shove in a pithing rod and scramble the brain.

Don't think me morbid for knowing this I was raised on a farm. As a result I am usually vegetarian and only believe in eating animals you knew and slaughter you self, and since I rarely have the desire to do such a deed I just don't eat much meat at all. For example I have killed rosters, I find them horrible animals they rape the hens bare, and think executing them is necessary, they just can't have a 1:1 sex ratio, they need 1:6 at least. The killing part is not hard and they don't bounce around as much as legend suggests, but the plucking is the most gruesome part! Besides that I have never killed anything larger than a goose, though I have witness professionals kill dogs, sheep, cows and horses.

Yeah in slaughter they don't use a gun, for sheep they use a full pithing gun which they place at the back of the animals head and it drives a rod straight through the skull at the intersection of the last neck vertebra and the skull. Its very precise and effective, instant paralysis and probably total lose of consciousness from the brain damage.

Alternates to the pithing gun is electroshock. In humans after electroshock they usually have no memory of the event even though their face and grunts suggested it was extremely painful. Of course electoshock may not kill, rather while the animal is unconscious a pithing rod is pounded into their brain. Of course a full pithing gun does all these steps but for animals larger than sheep it has not been very practical to make a pithing gun capable of drilling that deep. I would assume the device would be very large and unwieldy. Instead they may use a pithing gun to drill a hole to the cows brain from the forehead of the cow, and then shove in a pithing rod and scramble the brain.

Don't think me morbid for knowing this I was raised on a farm. As a result I am usually vegetarian and only believe in eating animals you knew and slaughter you self, and since I rarely have the desire to do such a deed I just don't eat much meat at all. For example I have killed rosters, I find them horrible animals they rape the hens bare, and think executing them is necessary, they just can't have a 1:1 sex ratio, they need 1:6 at least. The killing part is not hard and they don't bounce around as much as legend suggests, but the plucking is the most gruesome part! Besides that I have never killed anything larger than a goose, though I have witness professionals kill dogs, sheep, cows and horses.

thats not how it was done on the sheep station we stayed at. As i said the sheep slaughered to show us what happens (they were the meat for the farmers\workers anyway) had there throats cut and then there necks broken

as for chickens i have seen it done a few different ways, necks slit (river cottage programe), heads cut off (thats how dad kills them, puts them in a bucket and cuts head off so it doesnt run around)

thats not how it was done on the sheep station we stayed at. As i said the sheep slaughered to show us what happens (they were the meat for the farmers\workers anyway) had there throats cut and then there necks broken

Not saying the practice is uniform, that is just the more human (and fasts) ways I've seen using the pithing gun. What I saw they would run sheep down a very narrow ramp one at a time, and a guy would pop 'em in the back of the head and then another guy would dragged the body away for processing and repeat, like 10 sheep a minute. They would hang the bodies and then slit them and bleed them.

What you describe is something more akin to Kosher or Halal meats.


as for chickens I have seen it done a few different ways, necks slit (river cottage programe), heads cut off (thats how dad kills them, puts them in a bucket and cuts head off so it doesnt run around)

Just need to hold the legs lay it down over a board and be good with the hatchet. I've used a euthanasia chamber but birds get really frantic with CO2 gas and its hard to get the gas flow right so that its not too fast or too slow that they notice.

trust me, this was nither halal or kosher, it may have been done that way because they only do meat for consumption on the farm there, i dont know if they were a wool or meat farm and i dont think they had a large abitour there (this room was only big enough for 4 or 5 sheep at most, no where near big enough for large scale meat production)

trust me, this was nither halal or kosher, it may have been done that way because they only do meat for consumption on the farm there, i dont know if they were a wool or meat farm and i dont think they had a large abitour there (this room was only big enough for 4 or 5 sheep at most, no where near big enough for large scale meat production)

Well sure if they could not afford a stunner or were old fashion, what can be done? As is for meat viable for the international market it must met specific standards of slaughter, and I'm not sure what you describe is viable for that, no problem if the meat is for themselves. Again it all depends on how flexible slaughter laws are in your neck of the woods.

Hey check this out, this women is a little weird in explain electoshocking pigs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FEUfkmJQuA

This is a silly vote. Most slaughter houses have to follow the law, whatever it is.

Actually cutting the 2 carotids is quite humaine. Your forgetting that we arnt talking about death by a thousand cuts, or death by cutting off a limb
Once you sever the carotid arteries no blood reaches the brain, the brain can't store ATP therefore unconsciousness is quite rapid, then brain death follows. Snapping the spine is no quicker, infact it may actually be slower because the heart still beats under its own intrinsic rate

I've read that sometimes it results in a slow, excruciating death (several minutes), and even in the best of cases it's likely the animal suffers extreme pain for several seconds. Sorry, not good enough, there are better ways to do this.


i dont know, superfically i cant see any contamination issues and helium is used in euthanasia as a peaceful way to die. Its disadvantages in that method (that you need a sealed room and family and friends cant hold the pts hand) shouldnt be an issue with animal slaughter but there could be other issues with slaughter. Some i can guess at would be cost (both redesigning the abitour and the costs to buy the gasses), an inability to bleed out the animal straight away (resulting in higher blood content in the mussles and organs), speed (its much slower than killing by trauma)

1) If it's too expensive to kill the animal without torturing it, then don't kill it or eat it.
2) If it doesn't taste good unless the animal has been tortured to death, don't kill it or eat it.


BTW, your shot gun to the head doesnt garentiee instant death either. Actually there are many examples of humans living for miniutes or longer after taking a shot gun blast to the face

Well how about two shots, then? I know SWAT teams use shotguns that can fire 8 rounds in rapid succession before they need a reload. Of course I don't really mean they should literally use a shotgun, since there are more effective devices out there which guarantee they will scramble the cows' brains one way or another in very short order.

This is a silly vote. Most slaughter houses have to follow the law, whatever it is.

Strange. I don't see animal cruelty as silly. I suppose that's my unenlightened perspective talking.

Check this out, Electrical water stunning vs Controlled Atmosphere stunning of Poultry. Warning there are scenes of workers physically and sexually abusing the animals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4smUBY0P1Q

Here another view about human capital punishement, note from 7:30 onwards is video of testing of nitrogen asphyxiation on pigs, note the pig does not notice the nitrogen atmosphere (verse the CO2 one) and even after nearly blacking out returns to the nitrogen atmosphere to feed on treats unphased or stressed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EHXwyFhUXc

Clearly nitrogen asphyxiation is superior to any present form of slaughter! Nitrogen or deoxygenated air can be generated on sight with a gas separation system, the system can be highly automated and fool proof, reducing the need for workers of which some will ultimately be abusive sick fucks. Screw ritually slaughter, laws should forbid large scale meat production from using anything but nitrogen asphyxiation.

The first ytube video had some horrible scenes. I think that the way it was handled in the first instance is also psychologically tiresome for the workers there.

I must say, the second version was a lot simpler and less problematic. So I wonder why it's not been made globally like that?

@Quadraphonics

Thanks very much for the advice, I will take a page out of your book and try this again with Wallace.

You're suggesting that the problems they have with muslims and like Wilders? Perhaps. But it would be strange because these laws affect jews just as much as it does muslims and they have a significant jewish population who are economically important to them.

Strange. I don't see animal cruelty as silly. I suppose that's my unenlightened perspective talking.

Then the law itself allowed for animal cruelty..

In other words, if the slaughter houses were following the law, then the law permitted animal cruelty in how the animals were slaughtered in the first place.

Then the law itself allowed for animal cruelty..

In other words, if the slaughter houses were following the law, then the law permitted animal cruelty in how the animals were slaughtered in the first place.

I don't know about the Jewish practice, but there is no hard and fast rule for Islamic halaal slaughter. I have seen everything from chickens and goats being slaughtered at home on a regular basis to pre-stunning of animals for commercial slaughter as in the UK (http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/2010/09/23/123611/Meat-industry-defends-halal-slaughter-policy.htm)

The concept of halaal meat is first and foremost, to ensure that the meat is safe for consumption. Hence the animal must be bled [in Bombay, poor Hindus collect the blood and cook and eat it], the animal must have been killed specifically for eating, i.e. not a carcass, or beaten or gored to death or strangled or killed by a fall or killed by any other prey or drugged. Most people also include additives as forbidden in halal meats which makes them organic.

The religious connotations are rather mild i.e. the animal must be killed in the name of God. The demand for halal meat is so high that most non-Muslims also consume halal meat often without realising it


The number of Kazakhstan companies selling meat that complies with Islamic law has increased from a handful a decade ago to 500, and is expected to continue growing, government officials say.

The expanding domestic market for halal meat is actually rooted more in health than in religion, producers say. Animals used in halal production are fed no additives and are slaughtered in a way that minimizes the formation of bacteria.

That makes their meat an organic product that both Muslims and non-Muslims buy.

http://centralasianewswire.com/Kazakhstan/More-Kazakh-meat-producersnbspoffering-Islamic-law-compliant-products/viewstory.aspx?id=1670




The potential market for halal food in Germany is huge. An estimated four million Muslims live in Germany, and the community is pre-programmed to grow because Muslims have a higher birth rate than non-Muslims. Halal already accounts for 17 percent of the global food market, according to the World Halal Forum based in Malaysia.

Food Companies Worried About Animal Rights Groups

Market experts say the halal segment is growing faster than any other part of the food market. Sales of food that meets Islamic standards are expected to reach $641 billion in 2010, up from $587 billion in 2004. The European halal food market is expected to reach sales of $67 billion in 2010.

Food companies in other European countries with many Muslim residents have already adapted to their needs. In France, the Casino chain of supermarkets supplies halal meat products. In Britain, halal food is easily found in the top chains like Tesco and Sainsbury's. French delicatessen stores sell halal goose liver pate and British pharmacy retailer Boots sells halal baby food.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,653585,00.html


Tesco is claiming to be the first supermarket to roll out a halal meat barbecue range this summer in time for the football World Cup.

From 12 June, the supermarket will sell seven frozen chicken and lamb barbecue dishes and plans to add more to the range next year. The UK barbecue market has an estimated annual worth of £2.8bn, according to Tesco, with a calculated 6m consumers of halal meat in the UK.

Tesco ethnic food buying manager Steve Ewels said: “It’s estimated that there are about two million Muslims living in the UK, but until now there has never been a dedicated halal barbecue range.”

He added: “We know from our own sales data that there is a high growing demand for halal food, so for us it is a natural move to offer a barbecue range.”

http://www.meatinfo.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/10768/Tesco_unveils_halal_barbecue_range_to_tap_growing_ market.html


Halal meat is being routinely served at some of Britain’s most popular sporting venues, pubs, schools and hospitals without the public’s knowledge, it has emerged.

All beef, chicken and lamb sold to fans at Wembley Stadium has been secretly prepared in accordance with strict Islamic law.

And hundreds of pubs and restaurants in Britain, as well as top racecourses, schools and hospitals, now only serve chicken that has been ritually slaughtered according to Sharia Law.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1313458/Halal-Britain-Famous-institutions-routinely-serve-public-ritually-slaughtered-meat.html#ixzz1RZfjdm2N


So yeah, anyone who is eating organic meat, is probably eating halal meat.

The loophole is that they can continue ritualistic slaughter if they can prove that the animals are not suffering more than in conventional slaughter.

I'd like to see those idiots prove it. I recall slapping Sam down pretty comprehensively on it a few months back. Look at this idiot from the El Tawheed Mosque:


“There was no reason for passing this law,” said Imam Mahmut of the El Tawheed mosque in Amsterdam. “This is a political decision. Who has the authority to determine whether the way of killing animals is good or not?"

He's referring back to Allah here, the ultimate authority for the un-introspective. Unfortunately for him, real science trumps reactionary dogma, and the institutions of the nation-state have the authority to determine whether the way of killing animals is good or not, God bless 'em.

But let's run with his train of thought here: who has the authority to determine at what age it is permissible to have sex with a girl? Who has the authority to determine what consent is? Who, who has the authority to determine what blasphemy is? And so on.


"Their way of killing the animal is not good either. The killing takes longer and the animal suffers more.”

Completely and utterly false, and he probably knows it. That or I'm forced to believe he's abominably stupid rather than just misguided.


He said Muslims in the Netherlands will turn to imported meat now. “It shouldn’t be the problem. The meat can be imported to the Netherlands from neighboring countries,” he said.

In other words, he prefers ongoing animal suffering to ethical re-evaluation.

Here's another slew from another jackass.


“The very fact that there is a discussion about this is very painful for the Jewish community,” Netherlands Chief Rabbi Binyomin Jacobs told Reuters. “Those who survived the (second world) war remember the very first law made by the Germans in Holland was the banning of schechita or the Jewish way of slaughtering animals.”

Okay, I appreciate the Nazi reference to intrusion into Jewish political-religious landscapes here, but the Nazis did lots of other things to Jews using philosophies and materials that no one objects to using now: railways and road systems for transporting people, metal piping to murder them, industrialism, and so forth. Because the Nazis did it isn't an argument in isolation of all other ethical facts. Animals are suffering, and it's needless. The same jackass also opines that it's impossible to know whether an animal suffers more during one form of slaughter or another, which is bullshit from the ground up.


Then the law itself allowed for animal cruelty..

In other words, if the slaughter houses were following the law, then the law permitted animal cruelty in how the animals were slaughtered in the first place.

I would say more that there was a lack of control that allowed animal suffering by the immoral and unethical. I mean, if there were some law that allowed you to beat your wife if she didn't lie with you, I think it would be incumbent on the moral, ethical and good to ignore that law. But yes, I suppose it was quasi-legal as a special case. Thankfully, that gap should soon be closed.

Fuck, if the issue is really about getting the blood out of the meat, stun the fucker, kill it, and hang it to let it drain for a while. This isn't a hard issue, here.

@Sam

Organic doesn't have anything to do with how an animal is slaughtered but whether it is raised naturally and without growth hormones. You can have organic meat slaughtered in a manner that is not consistent with kosher or halal ritual.

@Sam

Organic doesn't have anything to do with how an animal is slaughtered but whether it is raised naturally and without growth hormones. You can have organic meat slaughtered in a manner that is not consistent with kosher or halal ritual.

Yes I know, but the fact is that most meat sold as halal is usually organic because halal meat should ideally be without hormones or drugs. Sometimes its unavoidable to eat factory farmed meat but where Muslims are in sufficient numbers they will raise their own meat according to halal standards. Its an assumption of mine but based on my experience of Muslim communities I would say that any place where there is a significant Muslim population, most non-Muslims will be eating halal meat as well.

Yes I know, but the fact is that most meat sold as halal is usually organic because halal meat should ideally be without hormones or drugs. Sometimes its unavoidable to eat factory farmed meat but where Muslims are in sufficient numbers they will raise their own meat according to halal standards. Its an assumption of mine but based on my experience of Muslim communities I would say that any place where there is a significant Muslim population, most non-Muslims will be eating halal meat as well.

Which is, within the margins described, offensive. Hence the vote and hopefully the closure of this hole.

Also need a reference for the hormones/drugs assertion.

Which is, within the margins described, offensive. Hence the vote and hopefully the closure of this hole.

Also need a reference for the hormones/drugs assertion.

No reference, just word of mouth and general experience. There is dabiha [killed by ritual] and there is halal - which refers to the meat itself [permitted and forbidden characteristics] - like all things Muslim, you will find opinions on both sides of the argument but few will argue that giving hormones and antibiotics to an animal is better than not. I know that a lot of Muslims in the US prefer organic meat raised on their own farms because of the issue of pork fed cattle and mad cow disease.

Hysteria truly does stretch across all the boundaries of mankind.

No reference, just word of mouth and general experience. There is dabiha [killed by ritual] and there is halal - which refers to the meat itself [permitted and forbidden characteristics] - like all things Muslim, you will find opinions on both sides of the argument but few will argue that giving hormones and antibiotics to an animal is better than not. I know that a lot of Muslims in the US prefer organic meat raised on their own farms because of the issue of pork fed cattle and mad cow disease.

yea mad cow disease scares the hell out of me, thats why i will only buy meat that comes from Australia, never had any history ever of mad cow. Im assuming that your comment about the mad cow and the pork were 2 seprate things became mad cow actually comes from cattle feed with sheep bits, not pig.

I dont know if halal is as strict but as far as kosha goes, we had a kosha meal at a restraunt i worked at. It was rather intricate how the benches had to be scrubbed (WAY more than nessary to make them clean which we oviously do anyway), then gladwraped, then all the equiptment had to be brought in by them, and everything else we had had to be kept seprate. Oh and there own plates too

Hysteria truly does stretch across all the boundaries of mankind.

True. But I prefer my poultry grain fed and my cattle grass fed, so I go the extra mile. I guess if push comes to shove, I would place my health over a few minutes of an animal suffering. But I've killed so many animals for research and quite painfully too, that I think it would be hypocritical to be squeamish about killing animals for eating.

Besides, I am a fish eater. I buy almost all my seafood live and they die without any stunning or anesthesia and sometimes in boiling broth. I've even beheaded and deveined prawns that were still alive. :shrug:

I dont know if halal is as strict but as far as kosha goes, we had a kosha meal at a restraunt i worked at. It was rather intricate how the benches had to be scrubbed (WAY more than nessary to make them clean which we oviously do anyway), then gladwraped, then all the equiptment had to be brought in by them, and everything else we had had to be kept seprate. Oh and there own plates too


Yes indeed kosher rules are strict which is why kosher meat and dairy are halal for Muslims. There is a verse Quran 5:5 according to which kosher meat and dairy can be considered halal.

Yes indeed kosher rules are strict which is why kosher meat and dairy are halal for Muslims. There is a verse Quran 5:5 according to which kosher meat and dairy can be considered halal.

Hey Big Chiller, I can ask you - is meat halal if the cattle have been fed on meat products? For that matter, is it kosher? Do you think it halal if hormones or antibiotics have been fed to the animal?

I don't know I don't have scholarly expertise on halal. :o

Hey Big Chiller, I can ask you - is meat halal if the cattle have been fed on meat products? For that matter, is it kosher? Do you think it halal if hormones or antibiotics have been fed to the animal?

do you eat fish? fish (especially big fish like tuna and salmon) are carnivious and chickens are omnivors (they are great for getting bugs out of a veg garden)

do you eat fish? fish (especially big fish like tuna and salmon) are carnivious and chickens are omnivors (they are great for getting bugs out of a veg garden)

Yes of course, its not about being carnivorous, its about unnatural diet. Cattle normally don't eat each other nor do they eat pork as far as I know. Also much of the Muslim dietary laws are from Jews - we have very few indications as to what constitutes forbidden except for blood and pork [and carcasses]

see here:




Another reason to switch to organic halal is because Islamic principles govern the raising of animals as well as their slaughter for food. Humane treatement of animals is clearly defined in Islam, and forcing vegetarian animals such as cows to consume meat products, becoming cannibals in the process - shouldn't be considered Islamic. In addition to being fed properly, "free-range" cattle are also more likely to have a healthy outdoor existence, as opposed to some ranches where animals are kept crowded together indoors, eating (when the meat-based feed above isn't available or is banned) such appetizing items as "chicken litter" - a combination of litter, excrement, excess feathers and spilled food often found on chicken house floors. Free-range cattle ranches can also be favorably compared to "factory farming" - which turn the raising of animals into a production line with crowded feed lots and long trips in cramped transport vehicles.

http://www.altmuslim.com/a/a/a/2125

Yes of course, its not about being carnivorous, its about unnatural diet. Cattle normally don't eat each other nor do they eat pork as far as I know. Also much of the Muslim dietary laws are from Jews - we have very few indications as to what constitutes forbidden except for blood and pork [and carcasses]

see here:

does that mean your not forbiden from eatting shellfish the way the jews are? Would make sence concidering the number of muslim countries in SE Asia which are small islands. Not much room to raise beef but pleanty of sea to get fish and shellfish from

oh and thats another reason to buy Australian, our beef is grass feed (side note: its easy to tell actually wether its grain feed and kept still the way the japnanise like or grass feed and free range like Australians like, its in the fat, if its marbled through the meat its grain feed, if its around the edge its free range)

do you eat fish? fish (especially big fish like tuna and salmon) are carnivious and chickens are omnivors (they are great for getting bugs out of a veg garden)

It's not about being carnivorous or omnivorous although most land and air animals that are carnivorous or omnivorous are haram except for omnivores like chicken or pigeon...

does that mean your not forbiden from eatting shellfish the way the jews are? Would make sence concidering the number of muslim countries in SE Asia which are small islands. Not much room to raise beef but pleanty of sea to get fish and shellfish from

There are some Muslims who follow the Jewish laws and consider seafood as makruh [not forbidden but advised against] but the Quran makes no such injunction against shellfish


oh and thats another reason to buy Australian, our beef is grass feed (side note: its easy to tell actually wether its grain feed and kept still the way the japnanise like or grass feed and free range like Australians like, its in the fat, if its marbled through the meat its grain feed, if its around the edge its free range)

In Saudi Arabia, I noticed all imported lamb was from Australia because it is considered halal; when the Aussies had a problem with foot and mouth, we switched to Sudanese lamb

does that mean your not forbiden from eatting shellfish the way the jews are? Would make sence concidering the number of muslim countries in SE Asia which are small islands. Not much room to raise beef but pleanty of sea to get fish and shellfish from


According to one of the four Islamic schools of jurisprudence the Hanafis eating shellfish is makruh (disliked).

According to one of the four Islamic schools of jurisprudence the Hanafis eating shellfish is makruh (disliked).

interesting, its definitly part of indoneasian cooking. Shrimp paste is also part of most of south east asian cooking and i think indian as well (but sam can answer that)

Sam the live export of animals from Australia is in some debate at the moment. The Australian public (and therefore the goverment) were quite unhappy to see pitures of sheep in the middle east being put into the boots of cars. Then there is what happened in indoneasia recently. Not saying its about muslim practices but it maybe that in a few years all Australian meat sold outside Australia will be slaughtered here and then shiped or flown overseas

I would say more that there was a lack of control that allowed animal suffering by the immoral and unethical. I mean, if there were some law that allowed you to beat your wife if she didn't lie with you, I think it would be incumbent on the moral, ethical and good to ignore that law. But yes, I suppose it was quasi-legal as a special case. Thankfully, that gap should soon be closed.
From the article, it seems more gaps may be present.

The law previously allowed for ritual slaughter of the animals for human consumption. They are now trying to change the law to disallow it unless the supporters of such a form of slaughter are able to prove that the animal does not suffer more if it is stunned before it is slaughtered.

That is the "gap" being brought in. Muslims and Jews will still be able to have ritualised slaughter if they are able to prove that the animal does not suffer more than when it is stunned and slaughtered. To do so, they would have to prove that the animal suffers little to no pain when stunned, etc..


Fuck, if the issue is really about getting the blood out of the meat, stun the fucker, kill it, and hang it to let it drain for a while. This isn't a hard issue, here.
Don't ruin my steak.

I have to wonder about lobster, for instance- I think it's sublimely delicious with melted butter, but from my personal experience watching people boil it alive to keep the meat sweet, I may need to re-evaluate my preferences.Some crustacean nervous systems shut down at a pleasantly warm 25C.

michael, cpt There is only one legal way to kill crayfish in Australia. Put it in the fridge to let it go to sleep and then lay it out on a chopping board. You then take a sharp knife and stab straight down through the brain and pull straight forward to cut its brain in half, killing it basically instantly (interesting side note, if you did that to a human they might well survive unless you cut the brainstem in half)

michael, cpt There is only one legal way to kill crayfish in Australia. Put it in the fridge to let it go to sleep and then lay it out on a chopping board. You then take a sharp knife and stab straight down through the brain and pull straight forward to cut its brain in half, killing it basically instantly (interesting side note, if you did that to a human they might well survive unless you cut the brainstem in half)

yet that might not actually kill the lobster, its has less of a brain than many ganglia along the center of its body, what you describe might only be equal to a lobotomy for a lobster.

Also gasing won't work on them and other low oxygen demanding creatures, it would take hours.

yea mad cow disease scares the hell out of me, thats why i will only buy meat that comes from Australia, never had any history ever of mad cow. Im assuming that your comment about the mad cow and the pork were 2 seprate things became mad cow actually comes from cattle feed with sheep bits, not pig.

Uhm... you're really that terrified of mad cow disease? It's ok to take precautions, but statistically speaking, you should be 1000X more afraid of road traffic than mad cow.

Some crustacean nervous systems shut down at a pleasantly warm 25C.

Yeah, I don't know whether they actually suffer or how we would be able to tell, hence the conditional qualifier- I'm reconsidering my preferences, but still waiting for others to present relevant pain data or alternative cooking methods. In the case of cattle, pigs, sheep etc., I think the evidence of pain and suffering is far more clear cut.

Uhm... you're really that terrified of mad cow disease? It's ok to take precautions, but statistically speaking, you should be 1000X more afraid of road traffic than mad cow.

Yes but death isn't the worst thing that can happen to you and mad cow disease is one of the most horific diseases on the planet

yea mad cow disease scares the hell out of me, thats why i will only buy meat that comes from Australia, never had any history ever of mad cow. Im assuming that your comment about the mad cow and the pork were 2 seprate things became mad cow actually comes from cattle feed with sheep bits, not pig.

I think it comes from bone meal and meat products fed to cattle.


In the mid-1980s, an epidemic of BSE was seen among cattle in the United Kingdom. Because the suspected cause was a prion transmitted in meat and bone meal products fed to cattle there, the government banned the practice of feeding such products that may contain diseased tissue to animals in 1988. By then, however, infected cattle had already entered the human food supply.

By 1996, several people in the UK and others who had lived there were identified with a variant form of CJD, and the cause was linked to eating meat from cattle infected with mad cow disease. As of December 2003, 143 people with vCJD had been diagnosed in the UK.



In the US and many European countries, bone meal for MBM is usually made from pork [so also is gelatin which is made from a mixture of beef and pork bones]

see example:


Product Name:MEAT AND BONE MEAL 43% (pure pork)

MBM 43%

MBM, PORCINE MEAT AND BONE MEAL, POULTRY MEAL, FEATHER MEAL, BONE MEAL, BLOOD MEAL, PORCINE MBM, MEAT AND BONE MEAL, GOLD MEAL

http://www.tradezz.com/buy_8484561_MEAT-AND-BONE.htm

Anyone who will eat a free range chicken has very little ground for objecting to anything else people eat.

Or a catfish, carp, etc.

One of the problems with the traditional Muslim ways of killing animals is that they don't seem to scale up easily to the size of American meat animals. It's one thing to slit the throat of a five hundred pound animal and control it while it bleeds out , it's another matter to handle a 1500 pound free range steer in the prime of athletic health.

I once saw a compromise adopted, by some Somali muslims who had purchased a steer for a wedding from a guy I knew who raised them mostly on pasture - they showed up with the knives and gear, apparently expecting a familiar sort of animal, and were faced with something apparently outside their experience: the compromise was to have the farmer shoot the animal in the head, and then the guys quickly slit its throat etc before its heart stopped.

I don't see the cruelty in small scale traditional throat-slit killing - the death is pretty quick, and without drama. But I don't see the problem with stunning the animal first, if that seems reasonable, either. Why is that not done, anyway?

The gentlest and most civilized slaughter I've seen was in a movie, and I'm not sure it was real - although it seemed to be more or less documentary: a pastoral nomad killed a sheep by flipping it on its back, pinching a fold of chest skin (the sheep just lay there, looking puzzled, feet not tied or anything), slitting the crease with a sharp knife (no sign of pain), reaching in and stopping the heart by hand-grip (a spasm, nothing dramatic).

Sheep evolved not to make noise as they are killed by predators - to prevent alerting more predators on over to the flock. But, they feel the pain.


Kind of like Americans under the thumb of Banker financial rape. They just shut up and take it.

From the article, it seems more gaps may be present.

The law previously allowed for ritual slaughter of the animals for human consumption. They are now trying to change the law to disallow it unless the supporters of such a form of slaughter are able to prove that the animal does not suffer more if it is stunned before it is slaughtered.

That is the "gap" being brought in. Muslims and Jews will still be able to have ritualised slaughter if they are able to prove that the animal does not suffer more than when it is stunned and slaughtered. To do so, they would have to prove that the animal suffers little to no pain when stunned, etc..

Sure that's still a gap, but it sounds a lot narrower than previously, which resembles an ethics-free zone as long a magic man in the sky said it was ok to do it that way.


Don't ruin my steak.

Hey, don't order it halal then. Honestly, my solution is an easy-peasy one. What is wrong with these idiots?