Jon Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Every living thing dies in the end, but that's no excuse to make life as shitty as possible up to then. The RSPCA have conducted research that proves that the halal method causes far more suffering than other methods, and should be banned. I don't believe it's a stick to beat Muslims with, it's just a stupid, cruel practise that should be banned immediately. There are far more reasons to ban it than to keep it. If the animal ends up dead, why wouldn't you choose the least cruel method? It makes no difference whatsoever to the end result on your plate. I'd like to plant both feet into Mr Rissworth's camp. I'd like to see animals killed for food in the most humane way possible, and would happily pay more for the privilege, if it costs more. Barbaric/ritualistic animal killing should have no place in a modern, advanced society, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 I think the irony is that Halal killing was set out the way it is because it was the safest, cleanest quickest way to kill an animal back before they had electro stun guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidlewis Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 So if someone slaughters animals by bumming them to death that's okay? Sorry to trivialise this debate but that's what I am doing. Cos I'm tired and want to make a funny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted November 10, 2011 Moderator Share Posted November 10, 2011 Nope, Bickster in rare moment of talking utter bollocks shocker.... but that's no excuse to make life as shitty as possible up to then. Not sure where I said that. I in fact said... ... a little bit of suffering really was to be expected at the end of the cycle, yes we can try and make sure they have a decent life while they go about their business of eating & growing but when it comes down to the final moments, whats the difference in the way they die? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 It isn't a "little bit of suffering" though. It's an awful lot of suffering, and unnecessary suffering at that. The difference in the way they die is that in one they don't suffer as they're rendered unconscious, and in the other way they do. Horribly. It isn't a far right issue at all, it's completely to do with if you think that that amount of animal suffering is OK. I don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted November 10, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted November 10, 2011 Nope, Bickster in rare moment of talking utter bollocks shocker.... but that's no excuse to make life as shitty as possible up to then. Not sure where I said that. I in fact said... ... a little bit of suffering really was to be expected at the end of the cycle, yes we can try and make sure they have a decent life while they go about their business of eating & growing but when it comes down to the final moments, whats the difference in the way they die? I would say part of what you have in bold is killing them as painlessly as possible. We're not making sure they have a decent life if we're killing them inhumanely when a more humane way is as easy to do. As kidlewis hinted at, it's not much good giving them a decent life if you then make them suffer for their final moments. It shouldn't be used as a stick to beat islam with, as you suggested. I agree wholeheartedly with that. but ignoring religion, I don't thin kit can be argued that Halal methods are less humane than "normal" methods. Whether banning Halal is the way to go is another debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houlston Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Isnt most halal meat stunned first anyway now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
privateer Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Isnt most halal meat stunned first anyway now? Stunned? Nah, I think your average chicken or goat would just be merely mildly surprised when they see the knife. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonno_2004 Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Isnt most halal meat stunned first anyway now? Stunned? Nah, I think your average chicken or goat would just be merely mildly surprised when they see the knife. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinker Posted November 10, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted November 10, 2011 Amazing, anyone worked in a abattoir? I know people who have on the maintenance and the cows are stunned, then have their necks broke by a blunt type wack, when it breaks down, about once an hour, the cow is left suffering while the machines fixed/ maintenance get there, its then bolted through the head. Itd done by machines, automated, computer operated, CHEAP!.......... We could always stroke the animal, while sneaking up from behind and shooting it, perhaps some candles and soft music as well, you know to make it a less painful way to die......... The very fact animals are killed in a certain way (halal or kosher) suggests they care more about the whole process than the average burger eating person who aint got a clue how the meat was sourced, killed....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houlston Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Amazing, anyone worked in a abattoir? I know people who have on the maintenance and the cows are stunned, then have their necks broke by a blunt type wack, when it breaks down, about once an hour, the cow is left suffering while the machines fixed/ maintenance get there, its then bolted through the head. Itd done by machines, automated, computer operated, CHEAP!.......... We could always stroke the animal, while sneaking up from behind and shooting it, perhaps some candles and soft music as well, you know to make it a less painful way to die......... Its regulation that a working spare stun bolt gun has to be kept so when one breaks down this kind of suffering doesnt happen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ikantcpell Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Like someone said earlier..it has no place in a modern society and iam hoping that evry country in the west has banned this cruel way of killing in the not to distance future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted November 10, 2011 Moderator Share Posted November 10, 2011 Nope, Bickster in rare moment of talking utter bollocks shocker.... but that's no excuse to make life as shitty as possible up to then. Not sure where I said that. I in fact said... ... a little bit of suffering really was to be expected at the end of the cycle, yes we can try and make sure they have a decent life while they go about their business of eating & growing but when it comes down to the final moments, whats the difference in the way they die? I would say part of what you have in bold is killing them as painlessly as possible. We're not making sure they have a decent life if we're killing them inhumanely when a more humane way is as easy to do. As kidlewis hinted at, it's not much good giving them a decent life if you then make them suffer for their final moments. It shouldn't be used as a stick to beat islam with, as you suggested. I agree wholeheartedly with that. but ignoring religion, I don't thin kit can be argued that Halal methods are less humane than "normal" methods. Whether banning Halal is the way to go is another debate. Final 2 minutes of their life? Have you ever been in a British abattoir? Which ever method of death is used it takes two minutes (roughly) for the animal to die. Painlessly doesn't really come into it to be honest, what is more "painless" (or humane if you wish to use such a term for something which isn't human anyway) , a bolt through the head which takes two minutes to die (if they get it right first time, which they often don't) or a huge slit from ear to ear, which takes two minutes to die, there is an argument (and actual proper scientific study) by a now deceased German Veterinary Professor from the University of Hamburg that suggests that the Muslim way of killing animals for eating is far less painful, than a bolt through the head as long as it is done correctly. The same would also apply for the Kosher way (which is very similar), like I said in my original post, people get mushy about animals, if they look at the facts of the matter, there is little in the way of difference between a bolt through the head and a slit throat from ear to ear. Same effect, same amount of time to die, one's just a little messier than the other and for those that really care about the animals feelings (there we go treating them like baby's again) they feel about the same amount of pain etc (despite what the RSPCA say - not an independent org as far as this discussion goes, they have an agenda). Hypocrissy rules, sometimes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted November 10, 2011 Author VT Supporter Share Posted November 10, 2011 Can't agree with you here Bicks, apart from the obvious issue that the right wing in Europe is supporting this not because they give a toss about animals, but because they want to attack what they see as invasive threatening cultures. Pretty much all animals are bled out in British abattoirs - I think them being aware of or not of their demise is an important thing. I don't wish to treat animals like babies, but I'd rather regardless that they suffer as little as possible, hence why stunning should be done imo. The bolt to the head doesn't kill, it isn't intended to as the animal needs to remain alive to allow for successful blood letting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidlewis Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 guillotine then, that would be quick, well bloody instant tbh. put larger animals heads in a stock like contraption and BOOM HEADSHOT! much better than anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted November 10, 2011 Author VT Supporter Share Posted November 10, 2011 That has similar problems to your suggestion of beheading by means of a sword earlier. Wastage, contamination, dangerous. Theres a reason we slaughter like we do. It's the best solution to the issue that takes into account safety, welfare, ease at industrial scale, lack of wastage, minimisation of potential contaminates and allowing for carcass inspection as easily as possible, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted November 10, 2011 Moderator Share Posted November 10, 2011 Pretty much all animals are bled out in British abattoirs - I think them being aware of or not of their demise is an important thing. And where is the idea that whichever method you use is making the beast less aware of what is happening? Either of the methods discussed is pretty much similar if done correctly i.e pain and feeling is gone in an instant. Neither of which imo is humane, we don't kill humans a) for meat, to be eaten and if we are dying the rules are that we drag it out as long as possible and give as much pain relief as we can (which is rarely enough). Animals aren't human, nor have we ever treated them as such. The humane thing just isn't appropriate. No method isn't without its flaws, no method isn't without it's mistakes. It's all about sensibilities really, it's without question imo that the traditional European bolt through the head method appeases Western sensibilities better but that has nothing to do with the actual facts of the matter, which are that.. well there's no big difference, it's just that one seems (to our Western minds) a bit less barbaric, the truth is, all methods of slaughter are barbaric. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted November 10, 2011 Author VT Supporter Share Posted November 10, 2011 Id have thought that it's fairly simple, really. I'd sooner not be aware of my throat being slashed than being eyes open wide awake for the whole bloody affair. I just can't agree with you Bicks. And vice versa no doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted November 10, 2011 Moderator Share Posted November 10, 2011 Id have thought that it's fairly simple, really. I'd sooner not be aware of my throat being slashed than being eyes open wide awake for the whole bloody affair. I just can't agree with you Bicks. And vice versa no doubt. You wouldn't be around to remember it, why would it matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted November 10, 2011 Author VT Supporter Share Posted November 10, 2011 Wheres the line drawn then? Ultimately these animals exist to die, extrapolating that thinking would lead to the conclusion that provided the product isn't spoiled you can do what you like to these creatures? I'd rather treat the thing with some decorum from cradle to grave (so to speak), regardless of whether it won't be around to remember it's last moments. I think that matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts