Popel Vooje
|
Re: Yes, But...
Sep 29, 2004, 14:23
|
Oh blimey, don't even get me started about Kosher slaughter. I freely admit, if there's one issue that almost brings out the racist in me, this is it. I'm sick of namby-pamby liberals (NOT a reference to you, PMM, btw, but to a few moral relativists with whom I've argued over this) trying to tell me we've got no right to makre it illegal as it's an assault on the freedom of th3e individual to folow his or her chosen creed.
Bollocks. It's cruel and disgusting and it should be illegal, full stop, and if Muslims don't like that they can go eat ratshit. I wouldn't tolerate that kind of thing if it was in the Bible, so why should the Koran be any different?
|
Vybik Jon
|
Re: Yes, But...
Sep 29, 2004, 14:52
|
|
I think you'll find Kosher slaughter probably is in the bible. I'm presuming that Halal slaughter is no better.
|
Cleira
|
Re: Korai
Sep 29, 2004, 16:10
|
|
Something that is working well for me these days is to use meat as a flavouring or even a garnish (eg one rasher of bacon srinkled over the top of an otherwise veggie meal) - its really cut down on my meat consumption, but the taste is still there. Bit of a compromise, I know, but still an improvement ...
|
Popel Vooje
|
Re: Yes, But...
Sep 29, 2004, 16:15
|
|
You're right. I was confusing the two. But they're both equally unforgiveable IMO, especially considering that there is no practical neeed for either, and that NOTHING in the Koran or the Bible actually specifies that the animals can't be stunned first.
|
Cleira
|
Re: Small point
Sep 30, 2004, 11:04
|
|
"Vegetable rights and peace1"
|
Merrick
|
Re: big reply pt 2
Oct 01, 2004, 14:56
|
Lemon, if you say there a moral difference between fox hunting and farmed beef because beef involves eating it, yet you say 'no it wouldn't make hunting more acceptable if they ate it at the end', then you have completely contradicted yourself.
Self-righteousness is to assume a general personal superiority base on one's moral position. I've not seen anyone do that on this thread.
It's not self-righteous to examine an issue and take a position on an issue based on morality and logic that you can readily explain and justify.
If taking such a position makes someone self-righteous then the only people who don't qualify are those who have no moral position on anything.
The relative cruelty of catching wild animals for food vs farming them is pretty clear as far as I can see. Yep, Daminxa's right that the moment of death is quicker if done by cattle bolt than by pack of hounds, but that's not the full story.
The transport to the slaughterhouse and hearing the rest of the herd slaughtered is certainly stressful and is equivalent to the chase of a fox. And we have to just hope slaughterhouses abide by the rules that don't allow animals to spend a long time in sight of others being killed, and that the slaughter is indeed instant (there's lots of documentation of incidences where it's not). And with certain practices such as halal and kosher slaughter, it is never instant.
let's get anthropomorhic a while. Imagine if you were taken away from your family while still breastfeeding. You were never allowed the social bonds, the diet, the domestic arrangements that free people take as their right, but spent your life in a concentration camp. Crammed in, poorly fed you develop diseases that cause pain. When you're about 16 years old, they put you in a truck and drive your for a few hours to another camp. You can see other people queuing up to go into a building, you can hear them screaming. Then you're shoved into a stall and shot in the head.
Alternatively, you have life born, grown up and lived freely, with all the liberty and social bonding a free person wants. One afternoon you are set upon by a gang. They chase you for hours, running you in terror until you collapse with exhaustion, then they pull you to pieces in less than a minute.
Neither's a choice you'd volunteer for, but really, if you had to pick one wouldn't you go for the latter?
|
