Dutch Ritual Slaughter Ban a Step Closer

AcidHell2 said:
Not at all, how does that even relate to less worthy in your mind. Being non religious could mean they sin more and as such strum ga non beloved might cause more temptation to sin. That is all nothing more and certainly not what you are suggesting.

What a silly comment you would turn down the love of your life because they are religious. My dads agnostic at best, not sure exactly his views as he doesn't seem to have any, mums religious they get on great and is treated like any other hobby that you may not enjoy. You compromise and support your loved one in any aspect.
Click to expand...

As to your second comment, I think there has been miscommunication.. I didn't say I'd advise not to be involved with someone because of their religion.
I dispute the notion that just because someone belongs to a religion, that somehow prevents or precludes them from commiting what is theologically termed -- a sin!
 
Spawn said:
Stop talking absolute ******** fella...
Click to expand...

errrr... and of course none of the mainstream religions practiced in this country believe in or support the idea of the persecution of or even the killing of homosexuals or if one wishes to leave or turn their back on their religion they should be killed ?

If that is what being part of a religious faith does for one, then I am quite happy to stick with my own beliefs which certainly doesn't include that sort of belief structure!
 
THink the Jewish poeple have suffered enough, this is their belief and its not like they a re bringing harm to the world.

I eat lots of meat and food from KFC etc?..do we always question the quality of life the animals where in before..no ..not really..and happen to know on many places when firing a bol tinto the head of cattle doesnt always work the first time.
 
lttlejoe said:
errrr... and of course none of the mainstream religions practiced in this country believe in or support the idea of the persecution of or even the killing of homosexuals or if one wishes to leave or turn their back on their religion they should be killed ?

If that is what being part of a religious faith does for one, then I am quite happy to stick with my own beliefs which certainly doesn't include that sort of belief structure!
Click to expand...

You do know the main reason for the arguments isnt the religion itself, it;s stupid people trying to enforce their beliefs on others...whatever they may be.
 
lttlejoe said:
I dispute the notion that just because someone belongs to a religion, that somehow prevents or precludes them from commiting what is theologically termed -- a sin!
Click to expand...

you may want to actually read what I wrote, everyone sins. But if you aren't re ivied you won't see certain sins as doing wrong, hence the temptation. Yet again talking nonsense and yet again no idea of religion or what it includes or what people think.
 
I cant believe people are so hung up over the method these animals are slaughtered. They still end up dead either way.

Its the same thing as the debate over the proper way to transport the animals to the slaughter house. You could ship them one by one in giant cow limos with personal attendants and air conditioning, but their still on a one way ride to being turned into hamburgers!

mmmm..... hamburgers. Now I'm hungry!
 
james.miller said:
:confused: after stunning you still have to kill the animal someway.
Click to expand...

Well obviously.

james.miller said:
you should be asking if the subsequent non-relegious killing is more humane that any religious methods.
Click to expand...

The article seems to centre around killing the animals without them being stunned first, it doesn't comment on the other religious methods so they are irrelevant as far as I can see.

Craig1981 said:
I cant believe people are so hung up over the method these animals are slaughtered. They still end up dead either way.

Its the same thing as the debate over the proper way to transport the animals to the slaughter house. You could ship them one by one in giant cow limos with personal attendants and air conditioning, but their still on a one way ride to being turned into hamburgers!
Click to expand...

It's all about cruelty. If you were about to die, wouldn't you like to have the most human method? Or would you rather be killed very slowly in an agonising way, after all, you're going to die anyway right? What does it matter?
 
Last edited:
Longbow said:
Well obviously.
Click to expand...

so why are you comparing stunning with slaughtering then?



The article seems to centre around killing the animals without them being stunned first, it doesn't comment on the other religious methods so they are irrelevant as far as I can see.
Click to expand...

of course it does thats what we're supposed to be discussing in this thread. as i have already mentioned, i dont know if they stun the animals first in holland, but its law to do so in the U.S, the U.k and Australia at the very least and that included religious slaughterings.

so forget the stunning part, you should be asking if non religous methods of slaugher are more or less humane than religous methods. as i said.

Longbow said:
It's all about cruelty. If you were about to die, wouldn't you like to have the most human method? Or would you rather be killed very slowly in an agonising way, after all, you're going to die anyway right? What does it matter?
Click to expand...

it's not slow and agonising at all. Look it up, its extremely quick and painless when its done right. it's a massive hemorrhage resulting in a loss of blood and oxygen to the brain. they die virtually instantly.
 
Last edited:
Be warned this video is a bit shocking, it shows a cow being killed with a bolt gun at the beginning which kills it instantly, the rest is halal slaughter:

http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/xba1z9

It's in french but you get the jist (I also realise that some halal slaughter houses do stun the animal first but there is no way of telling how exactly it was slaughtered down the kebab shop or whatever).

The problem is, in the past before refrigerators and modern farming and slaughter methods (like the bolt gun) halal and kosher would have been one of the safest ways of eating meat, but because religious doctrine can't move with the times people insist on doing something way out of date.
 
james.miller said:
so why are you comparing stunning with slaughtering then?
Click to expand...

I'm not, I was comparing stunning and killing, Vs. just killing.

james.miller said:
so forget the stunning part, you should be asking if non religous methods of slaugher are more or less humane than religous methods.
Click to expand...

Why? That's what this whole thing is about, the stunning.

james.miller said:
it's not slow and agonising at all. Look it up, its extremely quick and painless when its done right. it's a massive hemorrhage resulting in a loss of blood and oxygen to the brain. they die virtually instantly.
Click to expand...

I never said that's how the animals are killed. I asked the poster if he would mind being killed in that way, since it "doesn't matter". I wanted to know at what point does it matter.
 
Castiel said:
According to an NSPCA report In the UK 90% of the Halal prepared meat is stunned before slaughter anyway. As numerous threads on this topic have already said.
Click to expand...

So presumably legislation to bring the other 10% in line shouldn't raise any objections from halal abotours.
 
Longbow said:
I'm not, I was comparing stunning and killing, Vs. just killing.
Click to expand...


in most countries they are stunned first.



Why? That's what this whole thing is about, the stunning.
Click to expand...

no it isnt, its about the slaughtering.



I never said that's how the animals are killed. I asked the poster if he would mind being killed in that way, since it "doesn't matter". I wanted to know at what point does it matter.
Click to expand...

so that's irrelevant then?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom