Bullfight called Off

[LastMagicBean]

I'll take it as read that you have never indulged in casting aspersions on other posters debating skills .Fair play.

No. You see, I've always looked forward to the diversity of opinions. I don't care whether they can spell, bad grammar, swear too much or anything else.

Your pomposity disgusts me. Why is your opinion any better than anyone else ?????

You should be ashamed of that statement.

 

[Big Tone]

There's a difference between religious dogma causing problems and some perverts using religious institutions, or any institution, for their own agendas.

Religious dogma causing problems!? Those "problems" set science and progress back for centuries, not to mention the sexism and stupidity of it all. That's some problem that is, and one we still have to wrestle with today. I know what I would put in room 101. If you love God, burn a church. (Can't remember who said that).

 

[LastMagicBean]

Most of what you write in GD forum is nonsense.

..............said the nonsense machine.

 

[Micilin]

I'll take it as read that you have never indulged in casting aspersions on other posters debating skills .Fair play.

No. You see, I've always looked forward to the diversity of opinions. I don't care whether they can spell, bad grammar, swear too much or anything else.

Your pomposity disgusts me. Why is your opinion any better than anyone else ?????

You should be ashamed of that statement.

I'll certainly reflect on it.

However, I did not say my opinion was better than anyone else's, or worth more.
I think you'll find most people think their opinions are right, though , as that's why they hold them!

I am saying that some posters do not have the tools to argue their point. They avoid questions posed, go off on tangents, they make illogical leaps etc and for some reason don't like having their own words quoted and used in the discussion.

I don't think I have been noted for criticising spelling or grammar. I do have an opinion on swearing, I think its use demeans the user when debating, and detracts from their argument.

So I still say that some people here can't debate properly. Some avoid questions, answer a question with a question as a first resort, make illogical jumps and suppositions and so on.

None of that undervalues the opinion per se. But if posting one on a public forum, especially as an interjection, then expect it to be challenged and be robust enough to deal with that challenge. It's only an anonymous internet board!

As I said, fair play to you if you have never made a negative comment on other people's debating style.

Apart from mine





Edit- just read the post .above calling someone a 'nonsense machine' is certainly a novel way to value diversity of opinion.

 

[RogueHanger]

Whenever someone wants to do something illegal or immoral they use God as a reason or the devil made me do it.

I don't think you meant that as a general sweeping statement, did you?

Yes, now go up to your room and Reverend Tone will be up in a minute with some KY jelly to teach you a lesson. Many a truth spoke in jest.

I don't think your comments are sensible at all.
Or are you being intentionally silly?
There's a difference between religious dogma causing problems and some perverts using religious institutions, or any institution, for their own agendas.

There's a difference between religious dogma causing problems and some perverts using religious institutions, or any institution, for their own agendas.

Religious dogma causing problems!? Those "problems" set science and progress back for centuries, not to mention the sexism and stupidity of it all. That's some problem that is, and one we still have to wrestle with today. I know what I would put in room 101. If you love God, burn a church. (Can't remember who said that).

Sorry, BT, but I have to draw you back to the point of the discussion, 'cos you're in danger of misleading the reader by taking my comments out of context.
My comment, and therefore the discussion isn't about the degree or type of problems caused by religious dogma.
I've reproduced the few comments that preceded your response, and I've placed them above yours so that they flow in chronological order.

My comment was about the difference between problems (all and any) caused by religious dogma and perverts exploiting institutions for their own agenda. Which is a contextual difference, not a quantitive or qualititive difference. Or, to use one of your favourite expressions, it's a bit like comparing apples to oranges.

 

[RogueHanger]

Yes. You were implying that animals understand words. They don't

Nonsense.

Then why did you not explain politely to this cat that keeps pooing in your garden that it's a bit of a nuisance and would he/she mind going somewhere else, instead of running it over:

Oh, I know. It's the cats pooing in your garden thing again, isn't it?

No, that particular offender was mysteriously run over.

I hope you stunned it first otherwise whitespirit will be upset.

 

[Big Tone]

Soz if I did an out of context thing, I wasn't trying to and I can't quite see what I've done. My 4Gb brain trying to do 16Gb tasks at the mo, and in need of a defrag... (Nearly said Speed disk; showing my age).

 

[Whitespirit66]

Do you know

1)how long the abattoir slaughter process takes

2) how many wounds are inflicted in the abattoir slaughter process

And if so ,do these have any bearing on the relative cruelty of abattoir and ring?

Try asking the unfortunate beasts concerned. Whether it be a bull or a sheep or a chicken - wouldn't you say that they'd all be a lot happier to be stunned before their ordeals?

I'll answer your question -Yes.

Can you answer mine?

Your questions are vague. Are you referring to halal or the more humane abattoir process that was the norm until recent times?

Not really understanding the relevance either.

Relevance ? You introduced relative cruelty of Halal slaughter and bullfighting, so it is directly relevant to your post.

Vague? Are you perhaps able to compare all three then?

Bullfight, Halal Abbatoir, Your traditional abattoir

1. Time it takes to kill the animal.
2. Number of wounds used.

You must know these things for each in order to be so assured in your ranking in terms of cruelty.

Thank you. That's much clearer now.

My answers to you are;

1. No

2. Haven't the foggiest.

I haven't 'ranked' unnecessarily cruel practices, just grouped them together as I believe we have a responsibility to animals to treat them as humanely as possible.

I firmly believe that rules that are in place for animal welfare shouldn't be disregarded for backward religious sects.

If both the British Veterinary Association and The RSPCA are calling for non-stunned halal slaughter to be banned, then once again, this is good enough for me.

To quote from the link below -

'Scientific evidence shows that slaughter without pre-stunning compromises animal welfare; a position supported by the Humane Slaughter Association, the Farm Animal Welfare Council, and the Federation of Veterinarians of Europe. BVA and RSPCA are therefore renewing their call for an end to the practice'

You can get together with coathanger and use all the stats and diversionary tactics you want.It won't change the facts and research from the leading organisations in this field. You can criticise my debating skills all you want but if you can't successfully argue or prove that all of these organisations are wrong, then your criticism is meaningless.

http://www.bva.co.uk/news/3794.aspx

 

[LastMagicBean]

So I still say that some people here can't debate properly. Some avoid questions, answer a question with a question as a first resort, make illogical jumps and suppositions and so on.

(I'm shaking my head in disbelief.)

What's the point in bothering then????

Why waste your precious time with a forum full of simpletons????

Eggheads only.

Marvelous.

 

[LastMagicBean]

Then why did you not explain politely to this cat that keeps pooing in your garden that it's a bit of a nuisance and would he/she mind going somewhere else, instead of running it over:

It didn't listen.

 

[Big Tone]

If I'm honest, I don't agree with stunning as such either and I'll say why.

Thinking about my life, or any life, when it comes to a point of inevitably how would you ideally want to go? Since this is a subject close to my heart and witness it all too often, I feel more qualified than most on this subject. (Not arrogantly I hope).

The 'subject' shouldn't linger.
The subject shouldn't be aware what is to come.
The subject should not suffer.

As I said, animals know what is to come when they hear the cries of others. So I would prefer a situation where an animal is going about its business that it's known all its life and then - END!

No stun which they may, for all we know, not be completely 'out of it' or botched! No communication of impending doom. And absolutely no suffering, mentally or physically!

It's no more or less than I would want and hope for to 'exit' from my own life. Why should any animal deserve less? It should not be beyond the wit of 21st century mankind to do this, instead of barbaric and/or religious/sadistic practices!

 

[LastMagicBean]

Thinking about my life, or any life, when it comes to a point of inevitably how would you ideally want to go?

I'd like a couple of RH's posts read to me.
I'd be bored to death within minutes.

 

[JBR]

If I'm honest, I don't agree with stunning as such either and I'll say why.

Thinking about my life, or any life, when it comes to a point of inevitably how would you ideally want to go? Since this is a subject close to my heart and witness it all too often, I feel more qualified than most on this subject. (Not arrogantly I hope).

The 'subject' shouldn't linger.
The subject shouldn't be aware what is to come.
The subject should not suffer.

As I said, animals know what is to come when they hear the cries of others. So I would prefer a situation where an animal is going about its business that it's known all its life and then - END!

No stun which they may, for all we know, not be completely 'out of it' or botched! No communication of impending doom. And absolutely no suffering, mentally or physically!

It's no more or less than I would want and hope for to 'exit' from my own life. Why should any animal deserve less? It should not be beyond the wit of 21st century mankind to do this, instead of barbaric and/or religious/sadistic practices!

I'd agree fully with your ideals, but in what manner would you then dispatch the animal?

I suppose my suggestion would be to isolate the animal and then use a humane killer - the type that fires a bolt directly into the animal's brain. I understand that this results in instant death without suffering, although the contraption I am envisaging is only used on large animals like cows and horses. I'm sure there must be a similar system for smaller animals.

 

[enyam]

If I'm honest, I don't agree with stunning as such either and I'll say why.

Thinking about my life, or any life, when it comes to a point of inevitably how would you ideally want to go? Since this is a subject close to my heart and witness it all too often, I feel more qualified than most on this subject. (Not arrogantly I hope).

The 'subject' shouldn't linger.
The subject shouldn't be aware what is to come.
The subject should not suffer.

How about cancer patients being given morphine effectively stunning them until the inevitable happens.

 

[Big Tone]

I looked to see if I could PM you enyam; but can't see if or how. No further comment here sorry; would be inappropriate.

@JBR. You are talking along the same lines as I would think better mate.