Subway

[Big Tone]

I usually agree with you JB, but I'm not so sure on all of your post this time; specifically the cruelty. (I could be wrong but please hear me out).

Having seen programs and read on how we, the West, slaughter animals and read all I can on Halal now, it can be argued that there's little difference in terms of actual cruelty or distress.

As an atheist, I couldn't care less who does the deed or whether they pray over the animal. (So long as they are professional).

Animals, so I have personally witnessed, 'know' what is impending. Memories of sheep bleating their heads off as one by one they met their fate.

I conclude that if anyone really objects to how animals are slaughtered, (by 'us' or 'them'), they should vote by becoming a vegetarian.

 

[Brigadier]

RH wrote "Apart fom the fact the we don't mumble a few words while slaughtering the animals, there isn't a great deal of difference."

Quite - so, Halal is basically an arbitrary situation - provided that the animal is / was hygienic, it makes no difference to the consumer.

Playing Devil's advocate, what about my right to have an entirely-arbitrary desire to not consume meat that "has been mumbled over", respected?

As long as the meat is fit to consume, I personally don't care - what I do care about is that we are all treated equally and fairly. If it is "right" that peoples' wishes are respected, make it fair and respect all peoples' wishes equally.

 

[Micilin]

I think you're missing the point completely.

1. I object to halal slaughter because it is inhumane. If animals were completely stunned prior to having their throats cut it would be different but, for some reason, they are obliged to suffer unnecessary fear and pain in order to satisfy the believers of some outdated mediaeval religion.

2. I object to an increasing number of outlets choosing to offer halal meat as the only option (often without advertising the fact) because it is easier to deny the beliefs of non-muslims in order to appease muslims than the reverse. Can you imagine the backlash if the reverse were the case - everyone being obliged to use only non-halal meat in order not to upset non-muslims? Yes, perhaps in France but never in this country. In fact the situation has become such that many are actually AFRAID to upset muslims in even the slightest way because of the inevitable 'racist' accusations.

This country has had it.

Well, I think I addressed your point 1 by saying 'by all means object to HOW' the animals are killed. I I think kosher/halal is a load of nonsense but listening to 5Live this morning animals can be stunned for Halal. The meat producer (?)
From NZ said that all their lamb is killed the same way regardless of market, but it is okay for Halal because of the words said at the plant.

I understand fully that welfare is one issue, religious cant is another.


I think that perhaps Your Point 2 misses what I said - if you set no store by another religion, then it is immaterial what someone says as your food is prepared.it is not against any Christian belief to eat kosher or halal. Atheists like myself regard it as totally irrelevant. So it's not quite the same thing as getting a Jew or Muslim or Vegetarian to eat pork against their beliefs. If Jedi Knights stand outside the Kelloggs plant spouting similar nonsense it won't put me off my cornflakes .

We are arguing over a simple business decision being made by companies that us no impact on the food they produce at all.

I don't recall any similar campaign against Kosher food. This is just another 'them v us ' being whipped up for the usual agenda.

Religion..... dear me,what would we do without it?

 

[EddieM]

From what I have read and please accept my apologies if it is incorrect. Halal slaughter can be performed on either stunned or non stunned animals. Kosher compliant slaughter can only be carried out on non stunned animals.

The articles I read stated, perhaps unsurprisingly, that non stunned animals suffer very significant and prolonged pain when slaughtered. If this is correct, I don't from an animal welfare POV find acceptable.

 

[Micilin]

I usually agree with you JB, but I'm not so sure on all of your post this time; specifically the cruelty. (I could be wrong but please hear me out).

Having seen programs and read on how we, the West, slaughter animals and read all I can on Halal now, it can be argued that there's little difference in terms of actual cruelty or distress.

As an atheist, I couldn't care less who does the deed or whether they pray over the animal. (So long as they are professional).

Animals, so I have personally witnessed, 'know' what is impending. Memories of sheep bleating their heads off as one by one they met their fate.

I conclude that if anyone really objects to how animals are slaughtered, (by 'us' or 'them'), they should vote by becoming a vegetarian.

Well put, Tone.
Personally. I want it done as humanely as possible but am under no illusions about the process of slaughter and have killed and eaten my own meat so not one of those who only has pangs of conscience when shown pictures etc

 

[Micilin]

From what I have read and please accept my apologies if it is incorrect. Halal slaughter can be performed on either stunned or non stunned animals. Kosher compliant slaughter can only be carried out on non stunned animals.

The articles I read stated, perhaps unsurprisingly, that non stunned animals suffer very significant and prolonged pain when slaughtered. This if true I don't from an animal welfare POV find acceptable.

So Kosher meat is the one that should be objected tomon grounds of cruelty if you are not Jewish?

 

[Micilin]

Of course I am forgetting that some people believe that words , even when said in a language that one doesn't understand, contain some kind of magical power.

And until I can understand that kind of thinking, I probably won't fully get the objections people have . When on the one hand they say they don't believe in a certain religion, but yet still imbue the words with some kind of mystical power, where is the logic in any of it?

 

[EFLImpudence]

EFL - not sure about the point you are making, but are you saying you think 'black' is pejorative?

I do think it is in the quote I mentioned:

"directed at blacks of Sub-Saharan African descent."

Had they written:

"directed at black people of Sub-Saharan African descent."

I would not.


That illustrates my point that it is not THE, or any, word but the way it is used.
Which words are considered pejorative alters with fashion so there is no definitive list.
I don't understand 'fashion' other than most people are stupid and believe what they are told without thinking about the subject.
Therefore a few people in charge decide what is to be considered pejorative even if it actually is not.

 

[Micilin]

EFL - not sure about the point you are making, but are you saying you think 'black' is pejorative?

I do think it is in the quote I mentioned:

"directed at blacks of Sub-Saharan African descent."

Had they written:

"directed at black people of Sub-Saharan African descent."

I would not.


That illustrates my point that it is not THE, or any, word but the way it is used.
Which words are considered pejorative alters with fashion so there is no definitive list.
I don't understand 'fashion' other than most people are stupid and believe what they are told without thinking about the subject.
Therefore a few people in charge decide what is to be considered pejorative even if it actually is not.

Understood,all to do with context and tone. Although in reporting wrt South Africa, 'blacks' and 'whites' were common usages in without any of those tones.

 

[JBR]

I usually agree with you JB, but I'm not so sure on all of your post this time; specifically the cruelty. (I could be wrong but please hear me out).

Having seen programs and read on how we, the West, slaughter animals and read all I can on Halal now, it can be argued that there's little difference in terms of actual cruelty or distress.

As an atheist, I couldn't care less who does the deed or whether they pray over the animal. (So long as they are professional).

Animals, so I have personally witnessed, 'know' what is impending. Memories of sheep bleating their heads off as one by one they met their fate.

I conclude that if anyone really objects to how animals are slaughtered, (by 'us' or 'them'), they should vote by becoming a vegetarian.

I'm an atheist too, and it doesn't matter a jot to me if whoever does the killing thinks they are assuring themselves a place in 'heaven' by going through the ritual of mumbling a few words.

If non-halal meat is, in fact, produced by inhumane methods then I abhor that equally. As I said, I thought that we live in a civilised country. I understand the need to eat meat (although I manage without), but is there any practical reason why this cannot be obtained in as humane a way as possible.

But what about my second point?

 

[JBR]

I think that perhaps Your Point 2 misses what I said - if you set no store by another religion, then it is immaterial what someone says as your food is prepared.it is not against any Christian belief to eat kosher or halal. Atheists like myself regard it as totally irrelevant. So it's not quite the same thing as getting a Jew or Muslim or Vegetarian to eat pork against their beliefs.

No, it is a much more general point than that. Not just about halal meat (or kosher food for that matter), but about kow-towing to one religion in particular whilst other religions (Christianity in particular) find themselves the ones being discriminated against.

You don't hear much about Sikhs, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, and so on insisting that their beliefs and practices take precedence over those of other religions.

So much for equality.

 

[JBR]

From what I have read and please accept my apologies if it is incorrect. Halal slaughter can be performed on either stunned or non stunned animals. Kosher compliant slaughter can only be carried out on non stunned animals.

The articles I read stated, perhaps unsurprisingly, that non stunned animals suffer very significant and prolonged pain when slaughtered. This if true I don't from an animal welfare POV find acceptable.

So Kosher meat is the one that should be objected tomon grounds of cruelty if you are not Jewish?

If that is the case then, yes, I agree. I am still not sure who does exactly what and in which way. The problem is that you hear much more about muslim practices than jewish.

 

[RogueHanger]

Finally, just an observation: Isn't it amazing how one potentially racially offensive term used against one of the racist posters on here causes all his KKK brothers flocking to shout "racist", when they're guilty as hell themselves.

It would simply have been remiss of anyone not to point out to you that a racist comment does not make a racist person Rogue. (As you have shown).

No apology was needed, I knew you were simply turning his name into something disparaging. So maybe you should cut people some slack and chill.

Actually, BT, I think there is a world of difference between mistakenly using a potentially racist offensive term, and those that do it intentionally.

I did corrupt ****espirit's username into a derivative that could be considered racist. I did so accidentally and I apologised.

Those that make racially offensive comments intentionally can't logically apologise. Infact, the point is, because they don't apologise when it's demonstrated that their view and comment was racist and/or offensive indicates that their contribution was intentionally racist and/or offensive.

You could turn someone racist with your OTT accusations. (To give a dog a bad name).

This crossed my mind the other day, in the context that Bush and Blair might have been the best recruiting seargents for the Islamic fundamentalists.
Don't you think that there is the real potential for the racists and islamaphobics to encourage the average person to not explicitly decry the fundamentalists. The thinking might be, "the fundamentalists are defending attacks on their religion."
So your argument, I think, not only cuts both ways, but is sharper in failing to discourage fundamentalism.

Tolerance, as you quite rightly pointed out, should be the climate.
That cuts both ways! But you are noticably failing to practise tolerance.

 

[Big Tone]

Tolerance, as you quite rightly pointed out, should be the climate.
That cuts both ways! But you are noticably failing to practise tolerance.

How? On a forum which is, or should be, light-hearted banter. I'm not the editor of a famous tabloid you know and this isn't front page news.

The rest that you said I agree with. So I'll quit while we're ahead

 

[Micilin]

I think that perhaps Your Point 2 misses what I said - if you set no store by another religion, then it is immaterial what someone says as your food is prepared.it is not against any Christian belief to eat kosher or halal. Atheists like myself regard it as totally irrelevant. So it's not quite the same thing as getting a Jew or Muslim or Vegetarian to eat pork against their beliefs.

No, it is a much more general point than that. Not just about halal meat (or kosher food for that matter), but about kow-towing to one religion in particular whilst other religions (Christianity in particular) find themselves the ones being discriminated against.

You don't hear much about Sikhs, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, and so on insisting that their beliefs and practices take precedence over those of other religions.

So much for equality.

Okay - but isn't the OP about a business making a decision to save costs that has no bearing at all on quality of meat or the actual slaughter process ?

I can't see anywhere that they are reacting to pressure from a Muslim group, or that some mainstream Islamic group has insisted on them becoming 'all Halal'.

Perhaps this is an aspect of the story that I missed?