Pages

Jump to bottom

29 comments

1 sffilk  Wed, Jun 29, 2011 12:37:17pm

This is NOT good.

2 theheat  Wed, Jun 29, 2011 12:59:51pm

I think slitting animal’s throats while fully conscious is fucking gruesome, barbaric, heartless, and just another expression of dominionism. I’ve watched a fair amount of animal slaughter, and despite how “kind” people think slitting an animal’s throat is, I guarantee the animal would disagree most strongly.

It’s one of the religious practices that, like belief in creationism, people cling to as part of their identity. Doesn’t make it less creepy. It doesn’t even make it right. It just means it’s something done in the name of religion.

3 Vicious Babushka  Wed, Jun 29, 2011 1:44:38pm

re: #2 theheat

I think slitting animal’s throats while fully conscious is fucking gruesome, barbaric, heartless, and just another expression of dominionism. I’ve watched a fair amount of animal slaughter, and despite how “kind” people think slitting an animal’s throat is, I guarantee the animal would disagree most strongly.

It’s one of the religious practices that, like belief in creationism, people cling to as part of their identity. Doesn’t make it less creepy. It doesn’t even make it right. It just means it’s something done in the name of religion.

Stunning an animal with a giant taser, taking several agonizing minutes to administer multiple electric shocks until the animal loses consciousness is not any more “humane” for the animal, just less messy and more efficient for the meat processing industry.

Would you rather be executed by guillotine or electric chair?

4 theheat  Wed, Jun 29, 2011 2:11:56pm

re: #3 Alouette

They don’t taser them with electric shocks. Do you even know what a captive bolt gun is?

5 What, me worry?  Wed, Jun 29, 2011 2:18:54pm

re: #4 theheat

They don’t taser them with electric shocks. Do you even know what a captive bolt gun is?

Which #1 does not always work, #2 doesn’t prevent the animal from feeling pain, it just paralyzes it so it can’t move, but still feels pain.

The entire laws of Jewish and Muslim kosher and halal laws are centered around the humane treatment of animals so why would you just assume that these practices are worse. Slitting the throat, as directed, drains the blood quickly, within seconds, rendering the animal unconscious (not just simply paralyzed) and then it dies seconds after.

Don’t believe us. Look up “stunning” and see what the practice entails.

6 What, me worry?  Wed, Jun 29, 2011 2:20:33pm

And yes, there are 3 ways to stun. The bolt is one, electric shot is another and gas is another. Before you make assumptions, you should know the facts.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org…]

7 Achilles Tang  Wed, Jun 29, 2011 2:23:14pm

This was in another post, and I also said there was nothing to respect in ancient primitive customs that serve no purpose except illustrate how different some groups are.

Historically humans have considered animals theirs to do with as they wish, and most gods have probably supported that. In this age many people say that attitude is a poor reflection of ourselves.

Those who support this because of religion either must also support customs like female circumcision since it is religious based, or they must admit that treatment of animals is of no concern to them. Neither position is admirable.

I would also add that we hear often, particularly about Islam (and in this case the issue is conveniently balanced religiously speaking) that literal interpretations of the Koran can be and are modified to conform with democratic and secular societies.

I can’t think of a simpler issue than this to prove or disprove that argument.

8 Achilles Tang  Wed, Jun 29, 2011 2:27:05pm

re: #5 marjoriemoon

Which #1 does not always work, #2 doesn’t prevent the animal from feeling pain, it just paralyzes it so it can’t move, but still feels pain.

If you argue that the most humane method of slaughter is indeed to slit the throat, one wonders why there is no non religious lobby to make that the standard. Even PETA should have been heard from.

I have seen animals slaughtered by slitting, stabbing, cutting the throat and There is nothing humane about watching it die, slowly.

9 theheat  Wed, Jun 29, 2011 2:49:20pm

re: #6 marjoriemoon

This is kind of making me laugh, that slitting an animal’s throat takes “seconds” for it to die, and that the (crueler) alternative of “shocking” a meat animal to death is common practice in the agriculture industry. Neither of these is true. It’s almost like the Heritage Foundation finding their own experts to defend their bullshit, if their bullshit was how super humane slitting animal’s throats is.

Don’t believe us. Look up “stunning” and see what the practice entails.

I don’t mean to sound contrite, but this is my business. I’m quite familiar with the process from soup to nuts. And hearing ridiculous claims like animals are being tasered instead of “humanely” having their throats slit is… ridiculous.

10 Jimmah  Wed, Jun 29, 2011 3:32:35pm

re: #9 theheat

And hearing ridiculous claims like animals are being tasered instead of “humanely” having their throats slit is… ridiculous.

It always amazes me that people are able to convince themselves that slitting the throat is a humane method of killing. I don’t think anyone would try to argue that it wasn’t a horrible way to die for a human. Why would it be any different for any another species of mammal?

11 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Jun 29, 2011 3:54:10pm

re: #7 Naso Tang

This was in another post, and I also said there was nothing to respect in ancient primitive customs that serve no purpose except illustrate how different some groups are.

Historically humans have considered animals theirs to do with as they wish, and most gods have probably supported that. In this age many people say that attitude is a poor reflection of ourselves.

Holland, like most other developed nations is a country with a large, mechanized, meat slaughtering and packing industry.

I find it hilarious almost beyond belief to see it suggested that a nation that has industrialized meat-packing has moved beyond the idea that ‘animals are theirs to do with as they wish’.

If Holland would like to outlaw slaughtering animals for food entirely, I would encourage them in this. In this modern age, outmoded and cruel customs should clearly be abandoned.

13 Vicious Babushka  Wed, Jun 29, 2011 3:59:38pm

re: #10 Jimmah

It always amazes me that people are able to convince themselves that slitting the throat is a humane method of killing. I don’t think anyone would try to argue that it wasn’t a horrible way to die for a human. Why would it be any different for any another species of mammal?

What form of execution is more humane? The guillotine or the electric chair?

14 Vicious Babushka  Wed, Jun 29, 2011 4:20:34pm

We are all justifiably outraged when bigoted douchbags like Bryan Fischer proclaim that Muslims must be forcibly converted to Christianity, or that homosexuals must be forcibly prevented from being with their partners, because “Islam is bad” and “homosexuality is a sin.”

But an identical class of bigot proclaims that Jews, and Muslims, must be forcibly prevented from slaughtering animals according to ancient methods, or from circumcising their sons, because “religion is stupid” and these primitives must be forcibly dragged into the 3rd Century BCE 1st Century 18th Century 19th Century 20th Century 21st Century.

15 kreyagg  Wed, Jun 29, 2011 5:41:32pm

Conventional vs Halal slaughter:

Kosher slaughter

16 kreyagg  Wed, Jun 29, 2011 5:44:07pm

re: #15 kreyagg

Both videos are graphic

17 What, me worry?  Wed, Jun 29, 2011 5:47:30pm

I’m not going to go on with this, but since people don’t seem to have a clue about Jewish law and the treatment of animals, I’ll provide some links. I hope you read them.

[Link: www.jewishveg.com…] (a vegetarian analysis).
[Link: www.jewfaq.org…]
[Link: www.bje.org.au…]

Some highlights. Jews are prohibited from taking eggs from a nest while the mother is present because it is cruel for the mother to see her young taken. Same goes for slaughter, the offspring cannot be killed in front of the mother.

Animals are to be fed before you eat because it is cruel for a hungry animal to watch you eat.

The Sabbath laws may be broken in order to provide care to a dying or injured animal.

From Genesis on through the Torah through oral tradition, the care and treatment of animals is major concern and consistently mentioned. It’s in the Pslams, in Deuteronomy, in Numbers, Ecclesiastes, Proverbs to name a few. And of course, the dietary laws themselves which are not only about health, but animal welfare.

For that which befalls the sons of men befalls beasts; even one thing befalls them; as the one dies, so dies the other; yea, they all have one breath; so that man has no preeminence above a beast; for all is vanity. All go to one place; all are of the dust. Who knows the spirit of men whether it goes upward; and the spirit of the beast whether it goes downward to the earth? (Ecclesiastes 3:19-21)

The righteous person regards the life of his beast. (Proverbs 12:10)

A farmer should not plow with an ox and an ass together (so that the weaker animal would not suffer pain in trying to keep up with the stronger one) (Deuteronomy 22:10)

God’s love is shown for animals. “His tender mercies are over all His creatures.” (Psalms. 145:9)

18 kreyagg  Wed, Jun 29, 2011 5:56:28pm

re: #14 Alouette


There are passages in the Pentateuch that clearly call for the summary executions of polytheists and homosexuals. I will gamble that you either ignore or choose to “reinterpret” those passages so you don’t wind up in prison. In fact, I’m sure that you are pleased that you don’t have to obey those passages either.

There’s no reason why you can’t choose to to do that with other passages of you holy book, if for no other reason to learn to treat or beings a little more humanely.

19 Vicious Babushka  Wed, Jun 29, 2011 6:03:00pm

re: #18 kreyagg

There are passages in the Pentateuch that clearly call for the summary executions of polytheists and homosexuals. I will gamble that you either ignore or choose to “reinterpret” those passages so you don’t wind up in prison. In fact, I’m sure that you are pleased that you don’t have to obey those passages either.

There’s no reason why you can’t choose to to do that with other passages of you holy book, if for no other reason to learn to treat or beings a little more humanely.

We don’t need “experts” like you to tell us how to interpret our own scriptures. That is why we have a huge body of literature going back millennia analyzing the meaning of every sentence and word, not because you like to imagine that you are the most “moral” and “humane” generation who ever existed in the history of the human race.

Why don’t you provide an example from the last 2000 years of recorded history of Jews practicing summary executions of polytheists and homosexuals.

I can provide an example of bigoted intolerance of the self-proclaimed “superior enlightened ones” without even leaving this thread.

20 kreyagg  Wed, Jun 29, 2011 6:08:11pm

re: #19 Alouette

It’s your religion, only you can make it more civilized.
One doesn’t need to be an expert, only able to read.

Accepting your claim does your argument no good. It just means that even religious Jews have been ignoring those passages for a long time.

21 Vicious Babushka  Wed, Jun 29, 2011 6:34:06pm

re: #20 kreyagg

It’s your religion, only you can make it more civilized.
One doesn’t need to be an expert, only able to read.

Accepting your claim does your argument no good. It just means that even religious Jews have been ignoring those passages for a long time.

No, it’s because religious Jews have a body of literature, totally ignored by kreyagg, which clearly delineates the circumstances under which capital punishment may be applied. A Sanhedrin that carried out one execution in a period of 70 years was called a “bloody court.”

We do not ignore our own scriptures, but we know how to interpret and understand them.

I don’t want to waste another useless post to an angry, bigoted simpleton who has never read even one page of the literature that I am referring to, yet claims to be morally superior to all us “primitive, illiterate untermenschen” because he says so.

22 kreyagg  Wed, Jun 29, 2011 6:38:41pm

re: #21 Alouette

You continue to make my point for me.

23 theheat  Wed, Jun 29, 2011 6:51:48pm

re: #14 Alouette

I agree with what you’re saying in part. I disagree with any part of religion (or non religion) that mainstreams cruelty and barbarism under the protection of tradition. That would include unnecessary cruelty to animals.

A lot of things done traditionally are no longer done in light of new information or better ways of doing things.

24 Lobengula  Wed, Jun 29, 2011 8:35:48pm

When re: #13 Alouette
A 1978 large-scale study conducted by Wilhelm Schulz compared halal slaughter to slaughter following stunning. The author concluded that the former was more humane based on EEG recordings from the slaughtered animal. Later however, he warned, that the study was flawed because his stunning technique was inadequate. This doesn’t stop the advocates of religious animal slaughter from citing this piece of research as the core of their arguement - which is why the issue of shechita/dabiha underscores the blatant hypocrisy of ideals within the respective religious communities: when a proposed ban on circumcision was touted in the US, the defence made in these very forums was that no scientific data exists that demonstrates that circumcision confers a disadvantage to the child. Here however, the scientific community is almost unanimous in agreeing that the slitting of the throat, far from being a quick and painless experience, causes significant distress to the animal.

What form of execution is more humane? The guillotine or the electric chair?


What a stupid, stupid thing to say, but I’m sure you knew that the analogy was misleading. The guillotine severs the spinal cord completely, slitting the neck does not. Marie Antoinette did not bleed to death.

25 theheat  Wed, Jun 29, 2011 8:43:01pm

re: #24 Lobengula

The guillotine severs the spinal cord completely, slitting the neck does not. Marie Antoinette did not bleed to death.


I understand what you’re saying, and I know how facts have been distorted - even bullshit information - to support slitting animals’ throats being “humane.”

You might, however, consider Alouette has been posting here a long time and is not stupid. Maybe misguided on this one issue, isn’t aware of the misinformation and disinformation out there, or has a different opinion, but not stupid.

I dunno. it just came across a little sharp to me in print. Maybe I’m reading more into it than necessary.

26 What, me worry?  Wed, Jun 29, 2011 8:56:45pm

re: #23 theheat

I agree with what you’re saying in part. I disagree with any part of religion (or non religion) that mainstreams cruelty and barbarism under the protection of tradition. That would include unnecessary cruelty to animals.

A lot of things done traditionally are no longer done in light of new information or better ways of doing things.

But it’s not so. It’s worse. If it wasn’t, Jews and Muslims would be more than happy to abide by any new finding. Truly. I don’t know specifically about Muslims texts, but since it’s a cultural aspect of the Jewish religion, I imagine Muslims have similar edicts and commandments.

If you look at Jewish practices that govern the care for animals as a whole, I would say the only other religious organization that goes farther are the Hindus and Buddhists. They don’t eat animals at all. And of course, many Jews and Muslims are vegetarians.

As a point of curiosity, it would be interesting to know if anyone posting here today is a vegetarian.

27 Velvet Elvis  Wed, Jun 29, 2011 9:42:02pm

I’m an ex vegetarian and still avoid beef and pork most of the time. I personally think “humane” and “slaughter” sound pretty silly when used in the same sentence together. I think that everyone who eats meat should be required to witness the slaughter of an animal just so they know what they are encouraging.

Debating the merits of one method of slaughter over another is really splitting hairs, particularly when the way most factory farmed animals are treated in life is more inhumane than how they are killed, regardless of method.

28 What, me worry?  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 10:47:51am

re: #27 Conservative Moonbat

I’m an ex vegetarian and still avoid beef and pork most of the time. I personally think “humane” and “slaughter” sound pretty silly when used in the same sentence together. I think that everyone who eats meat should be required to witness the slaughter of an animal just so they know what they are encouraging.

Debating the merits of one method of slaughter over another is really splitting hairs, particularly when the way most factory farmed animals are treated in life is more inhumane than how they are killed, regardless of method.

Coming from a vegetarian, your argument is 100% understandable and makes complete sense. I was a vegetarian for many years, but was never able to overcome anemia. Bad diet for me. Now we eat kosher meats when we eat red meat (maybe once a week) some chicken (kosher and non), mostly fish.

Kosher meats taste a lot better too because they don’t use hormones, steroids, etc.

Anyway, those on this thread screaming about abusing animals probably ate at BK, MickyD’s or TacoHell this week.

29 theheat  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 11:45:27am
re: #28 marjoriemoon
Anyway, those on this thread screaming about abusing animals probably ate at BK, MickyD’s or TacoHell this week.

1.) I am a vegetarian. 2.) I’ve seen a lot of animals slaughtered. 3.) On this subject, I actually do know what I’m talking about, and there are many unnecessarily abusive and cruel slaughter techniques, just as there are abusive and unnecessarily cruel factory farming practices. The fact they exist, or might even be the most prevalent, does not make them right.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
Yesterday
Views: 79 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 253 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1