The Halal Meal Scandal.

[ShadowedSkies]

So, over the past few days here in Britain, there has been a sudden wave of fastfood restaurants 'coming clean' about the use of Halal meat in their recipes. Now, this does not bother me in the slightest, but many people are complaining with such complains as "They're shoving another religion down our throats... literally". So far, Pizza Express and Subway have told the press that they use Halal meat, but they do not make it clear on the menu.

The big issue here is that many people feel as if the British Citizens that are muslims (I didn't use the ugly term 'immigrants' as 9/10 of them are just as British as I am) are slowly taking over our country, and have made a major move in this peaceful invasion by changing how our meat is slaughtered. THIS IS NOT THE CASE. It was the restaurants decisions to change what type of meat they buy, and they did it to appeal to all cultures. I, personally, am totally okay with this, as long as it is listed on the menu as Halal, or even Kosher.

What do you think?

DO NOT REPLY IF YOU WON'T KEEP AN OPEN MIND.

 

[Sven_Tu]

Didn't know what Halal meat was but after some browsing on the topic this is what I got:
Halal means actions that are permissible in Islamic law. Halal meat is meat that Muslims are allowed to eat from animals that must be killed in a certain way. Basically the animal must be conscious and healthy at the time of killing and must be slit by the throat by a Muslim while making a prayer to God.

From what I understand, part of the problem is that this method of slaughter is unethical. Since the animal must be conscious, they don't using stunning to knock them out. While the cut is supposed to be a quick, decisive, and humane cut, without being stunned the animal still feels extreme pain as they die. Though there have been animal rights laws that require stunning, these companies are exempt for religious reasons.

 

[FCCarnilord]

As long as I get my burger I'm fine.

Religious reasons- I'm not crossing the steps against other religions
Method of Killing- That I personally disagree with, getting slit in the throat doesn't kill you THAT quickly, and it's just a "poor animals" thing. But what can I say, feeling sorry for them only makes you have a worse taste. Wash it down, eat some more, and know that everything you have has come from a killed, deceased, or harvested being.

But in the end, 8/10 people do not care that they are constantly eating animals that have been fattened up to inhumane proportions to be tossed into a meat grinder to top our pieces of our breakfast by the hundreds per second as we shove them into our mouth.

 

[Rinus]

Alright. So they serve Halal meat. And your point?
The fact that people can't accept that religions can require dietary restrictions confuses and annoys me.
They are not shoving religion down your throat. If religion is not important in your diet, you don't have to try and make it not important for everyone.
The company just wants to appeal to a bigger audience.
To be honest, in my opinion, serving Halal meat is the same as serving regular meat? The only difference is that
A: The animal was killed ihn a certain way, which sems bad to some people and
B: The name is different.
If you don't want to eat Halal meat for some strange reason, don't acknowledge it as Halal meat??

 

[Waminer]

This seems perfectly legit as the free market usually dictates the more people you get to sell to, the bigger profits you will get. However depending on your definition of Halal it may require it to be killed by a Muslim rather than a Machine, or more importantly Sikh, Christian, Jew, Atheist, or anyone else. This is discrimination against Sikhs, Jews, Christians, Atheists ect. and should not be allowed, especially for mainstream restaurants. However besides this a company can do whatever they want within reason to get as much people to buy there stuff as possible.

 

[diCardinale]

This is discrimination against Sikhs, Jews, Christians, Atheists ect. and should not be allowed, especially for mainstream restaurants.

Click to shrink...

I kinda fail to see how it would be discrimination. Jews have almost the same rules about food as us, except they can drink alcohol, Christians and Sikhs, I see it there, but Atheists? I wouldn't think they would care, because Halal meat tends to be cleaner than some brands.
EDITV2: Also, Hindu's dont eat beef, so that not /really/ a problem, but I think they can eat lamb/pork.

Didn't know what Halal meat was but after some browsing on the topic this is what I got:
Halal means actions that are permissible in Islamic law. Halal meat is meat that Muslims are allowed to eat from animals that must be killed in a certain way. Basically the animal must be conscious and healthy at the time of killing and must be slit by the throat by a Muslim while making a prayer to God.

Click to shrink...

Sounds about right, lemme give you my understanding of it. When you kill the animal, you have to say you're doing in in the name of Allah (God). I dunno about the throat slit thing, but that can just be me.
EDIT: The throat slit part /could/ be a cultural thing, as many Islamic cultures, they tend to mix in a lot of their culture and say its part of Islam.

 

[Sven_Tu]

Sounds about right, lemme give you my understanding of it. When you kill the animal, you have to say you're doing in in the name of Allah (God). I dunno about the throat slit thing, but that can just be me.
EDIT: The throat slit part /could/ be a cultural thing, as many Islamic cultures, they tend to mix in a lot of their culture and say its part of Islam.

Click to shrink...

It's not a throat slit per se but that it needs to be done so the animal would die as quickly/humanely as possible. Dunno if that's part of the culture or just animal rights in effect. I think it also has to be the jugular vein because blood is also not allowed to be consumed so the animal needs to be drained.

 

[The Genie]

Personally, I see no problem in it. I respect all religions and I find nothing wrong with it. I am not much of an animal rights activist, so I'm not bothered by the animal being conscious and having their throat slit. The way I see it is that it's meat. This way, more people can eat the meat. Meat is meat. The only meat that I won't eat is meat blessed/cursed in the name of some evil dark being that wants to destroy the universe. Or infected meat.

 

[Waminer]

I kinda fail to see how it would be discrimination. Jews have almost the same rules about food as us, except they can drink alcohol, Christians and Sikhs, I see it there, but Atheists? I wouldn't think they would care, because Halal meat tends to be cleaner than some brands.
EDITV2: Also, Hindu's dont eat beef, so that not /really/ a problem, but I think they can eat lamb/pork.

Click to shrink...

I think you may have misinterpreted what I said. What I was saying was pertaining to the quote below specifically the underlined part is according to the sources below specifically the quote. If I have missed an exception to this rule then please excuse me, I do not have much knowledge about this.

What I am against here is the fact that only a Muslim may do it because it means in order to make Halal meat. This is unfair to people of all other religions and that are atheist/agnostic because they cannot be employed by slaughterhouses and hence this is discriminating against them as this is not a overtly religious job such as a priest or rabbi in which this would be acceptable.

For further example on why this is wrong lets take this out of context by blowing it out of proportion. Lets say the Jewish religion has very strict rules about where eating utensils came from. In fact, in order for it to be fit for consumption the person/persons that make it must be Jewish. This is discriminatory because now in order to sell to the rather large portion of the population that is Jewish, companies must employ Jews for this job exclusively to make the most money. That means everyone that is in that plant right now is fired for no reason. As well seeing how cows are essentially a raw product that is then "Refined" into different food dishes imagine if all that steel had to be mined by Jews. You have now made the entire steel mining industry that supplies The United Kingdom (Sticking with the actual country) which is based in everywhere from Canada, China, America, and itself fire all its employees because they have the "wrong" religion and replace them with Jews. If this was true there would be absolutely massive widespread outcry because it is a hundred billion dollar industry. However the reason people would be angry is because you have just discriminated against people because of their religious beliefs or lack there of. It is just because this would affect so many more people that this would be a larger issue but it is still wrong for the same reason, it is discrimination.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halal_meat

"The food must come from a supplier that uses halal practices. Specifically, the slaughter must be performed by a Muslim, who must precede the slaughter by invoking the name of Allah, most commonly by saying "Bismillah" ("In the name of God") and then three times "Allahu akbar" (God is the greatest). Then, the animal must be slaughtered with a sharp knife by cutting the throat, windpipe and the blood vessels in the neck, causing the animal's death without cutting the spinal cord. Lastly, the blood from the veins must be drained."

Click to shrink...

Literally everything went wrong with the quotes in this, hopefully that is fixed now.

 

[illogicalleaf314]

I don't think people aren't eating the meat because they feel "Muslims are taking over the country". People tend to prefer environmentally friendly and animal friendly products if possible, even if they cost a little extra. This is why we have both caged eggs and free range eggs. People who think the process their food goes through is unnecessarily cruel often boycot that type of food altogether. In this situation they were not given that opportunity to object to the brutal treatment of the animals they're eating, which is a reasonable complain, in my opinion. If people are objecting to the meal because of its religious implications, however, then that's just silly.

To me, the Eucharist isn't a piece of Jesus' flesh, it's a piece of unleavened bread, I'll eat it anyway as I don't believe there is anything special about it. I'll apply the same reasoning to all religious food preparations, unless it is unethical or bad tasting food is food and that's that.

 

[diCardinale]

I think you may have misinterpreted what I said. What I was saying was pertaining to the quote below specifically the underlined part is according to the sources below specifically the quote. If I have missed an exception to this rule then please excuse me, I do not have much knowledge about this.

What I am against here is the fact that only a Muslim may do it because it means in order to make Halal meat. This is unfair to people of all other religions and that are atheist/agnostic because they cannot be employed by slaughterhouses and hence this is discriminating against them as this is not a overtly religious job such as a priest or rabbi in which this would be acceptable.

Click to shrink...

Actually, there's a difference of opinion on this. So the Hanafi, a sort of division like Christianity has Jehovahs Witness or catholic or Protestant, etc, are of the opinion that the animal has to be slaughtered in the name of Allah AND be a Muslim, but the Maliki only believe that you have to slaughter it in the name of Allah and you dont have to be Muslim.

 

[Tuxyz]

If the meat is produced in a humane way then I have no issue with it, but if someone is using their indoctrinated religion as a reason to torture animals then their religion has no worth in my eyes, I will not put someones religious beliefs over a living beings well being. (This meaning that the animal feels as little pain as possible)

I can understand the reason that big companies do this in a country where a big percentage of people only eat the meat if it's produced in that way, but it is not ethical to do it.

 

[diCardinale]

If the meat is produced in a humane way then I have no issue with it, but if someone is using their indoctrinated religion as a reason to torture animals then their religion has no worth in my eyes, I will not put someones religious beliefs over a living beings well being. (This meaning that the animal feels as little pain as possible)

I can understand the reason that big companies do this in a country where a big percentage of people only eat the meat if it's produced in that way, but it is not ethical to do it.

Click to shrink...

Okay, so the way we do it is to make sure the animal is /calm/, not freaking out, and we give the animal some water to do so. Once it is calm you say in the name of Allah and such, and cut it from both jugular veins in the neck. When the animal is calm and you do this, the animal will die quickly with little pain. And as the animal is calm when you cut the head off, the blood literally pours right out, as when an animal is freaking out the blood starts to clot a bit, therefore preventing free blood flow from the body. My point of all this is that we do not slaughter animals inhumanely, as we acknowledge that an animal is basically giving up its life to help continue another animal/us.
Source: My father

 

[The Genie]

If the meat is produced in a humane way then I have no issue with it, but if someone is using their indoctrinated religion as a reason to torture animals then their religion has no worth in my eyes, I will not put someones religious beliefs over a living beings well being. (This meaning that the animal feels as little pain as possible)
I can understand the reason that big companies do this in a country where a big percentage of people only eat the meat if it's produced in that way, but it is not ethical to do it.

Click to shrink...

Well, personally, I'm a human supremacist. From what I've read on this thread, and from MrScafuto, it seems humane enough to me. It's just an animal. Humans matter more than an animal. From what he said, it seems a pretty quick way to die, somewhat painful, but very quick. If the head is cut off, the animal is dead. The animal only goes through probably less than a minute of suffering, which is FAR less than many humans go through when they die. It isn't a reason to torture animals, it's just something in the Islam religion, and it seems fairly humane. And, in all fairness, many religions seem to mean to those who practice them a matter of an eternity of suffering or eternity of happiness. I'm just saying, for those of the religions, that's a huge deal. They don't make a religion just so they can torture animals. That would be the most pointless thing ever. And, it really isn't that unethical. The animal dies a quick death. It's merciful. It may not be quite as pleasant as the usual methods of knocking out the animal, but, it's still a fast death. It's also cheaper than the methods of the whole stunning process or gassing the animal. But, it's really not that bad of a way to go.

Now, let me finish with this question, @Tuxyz what would you prefer if you were told you would die in a month (Assuming that your answer is not in regards to things such as missing your family and not getting to do things you wanted to): Getting your throat cut so you'd die very quickly, or withering away over the course of a month slowly and painfully? These animals have better deaths than many humans. Seriously.

 

[Tuxyz]

Okay, so the way we do it is to make sure the animal is /calm/, not freaking out, and we give the animal some water to do so. Once it is calm you say in the name of Allah and such, and cut it from both jugular veins in the neck. When the animal is calm and you do this, the animal will die quickly with little pain. And as the animal is calm when you cut the head off, the blood literally pours right out, as when an animal is freaking out the blood starts to clot a bit, therefore preventing free blood flow from the body. My point of all this is that we do not slaughter animals inhumanely, as we acknowledge that an animal is basically giving up its life to help continue another animal/us.
Source: My father

Click to shrink...

If the process works like this then I have no problems with it, my concern is for how much unnecessary pain that the animal has to feel, if that is not a concern I am fine with it.

Well, personally, I'm a human supremacist. From what I've read on this thread, and from MrScafuto, it seems humane enough to me. It's just an animal. Humans matter more than an animal. From what he said, it seems a pretty quick way to die, somewhat painful, but very quick. If the head is cut off, the animal is dead. The animal only goes through probably less than a minute of suffering, which is FAR less than many humans go through when they die. It isn't a reason to torture animals, it's just something in the Islam religion, and it seems fairly humane. And, in all fairness, many religions seem to mean to those who practice them a matter of an eternity of suffering or eternity of happiness. I'm just saying, for those of the religions, that's a huge deal. They don't make a religion just so they can torture animals. That would be the most pointless thing ever. And, it really isn't that unethical. The animal dies a quick death. It's merciful. It may not be quite as pleasant as the usual methods of knocking out the animal, but, it's still a fast death. It's also cheaper than the methods of the whole stunning process or gassing the animal. But, it's really not that bad of a way to go.

Now, let me finish with this question, @Tuxyz what would you prefer if you were told you would die in a month (Assuming that your answer is not in regards to things such as missing your family and not getting to do things you wanted to): Getting your throat cut so you'd die very quickly, or withering away over the course of a month slowly and painfully? These animals have better deaths than many humans. Seriously.

Click to shrink...

I have previously been told that the way the animals were killed was a lot more slow and painful than the usual way, which is why I voiced my opinion against it, if the animals do not feel more pain I have no problem with it.

 

[The Genie]

I have previously been told that the way the animals were killed was a lot more slow and painful than the usual way, which is why I voiced my opinion against it, if the animals do not feel more pain I have no problem with it.

Click to shrink...

Ah, well, fair enough.

 

[millawolf]

If the process works like this then I have no problems with it, my concern is for how much unnecessary pain that the animal has to feel, if that is not a concern I am fine with it.




I have previously been told that the way the animals were killed was a lot more slow and painful than the usual way, which is why I voiced my opinion against it, if the animals do not feel more pain I have no problem with it.

Click to shrink...

From what I've read it seems like one of the laws is to do it with a very sharp blade and to try to reduce the suffering of the animal.

 

[millawolf]

Here is the list of laws governing it:

• Any Muslim having reached puberty is allowed to slaughter after saying the name of Allah and facing Makkah (Mecca).
• The animal should not be thirsty at slaughter time.
• The knife must be sharp, to minimize the time and hence save the animal pain associated with the slaughtering process.
• The knife must not be sharpened in front of the animal because it may cause undue stress to that animal.
• The slaughter is to be done by cutting the throat of the animal or by piercing the hollow of the throat, causing the quickest death with the least amount of pain.
• The name of Allah has to be mentioned before or during slaughtering, since the Creator is the granter and taker of life; the name must be said by a member of the Muslim faith.
• Meat slaughtered by people of the Jewish or Christian faith (People of the Book) may also be eaten.
• The blood must be completely drawn from the carcass.

 

[Mecharic]

I find the entire argument to be foolish in the extreme - there is nothing 'humane' about the world. Sharks literally rip their prey apart, and I'm sure you cow is overjoyed that it wasn't able to FEEL dying... either way, both the sharks dinner and ours ended up dead, so why do we complain about the way it died?

 

[millawolf]

I find the entire argument to be foolish in the extreme - there is nothing 'humane' about the world. Sharks literally rip their prey apart, and I'm sure you cow is overjoyed that it wasn't able to FEEL dying... either way, both the sharks dinner and ours ended up dead, so why do we complain about the way it died?

Click to shrink...

I think the augment is that unlike the Shark we have a choice. We do not act off of instinct alone, but instead have the choice of acting humanely.
Humane: having or showing compassion or benevolence

 

[Mecharic]

I think the augment is that unlike the Shark we have a choice. We do not act off of instinct alone, but instead have the choice of acting humanely.
Humane: having or showing compassion or benevolence

Click to shrink...

But that doesn't have any effect on the end result: the shark rips it's dinner in half, killing it. Humans chop off the head of a fish, killing it. There is no difference in result, only in method, and the only ones who feel better for it are humans, who can pretend that because it wasn't 'too painful' it's perfectly fine to have killed that fish. There is no difference for the fish, which dies either way.

 

[millawolf]

But that doesn't have any effect on the end result: the shark rips it's dinner in half, killing it. Humans chop off the head of a fish, killing it. There is no difference in result, only in method, and the only ones who feel better for it are humans, who can pretend that because it wasn't 'too painful' it's perfectly fine to have killed that fish. There is no difference for the fish, which dies either way.

Click to shrink...

I agree. I was simply playing the devils advocate and stating where the argument comes from. I grew up in a famially that trapped and hunted for meat. I also helped raise animals for slaughter. We knew we were killing things to eat, but we did try to make their death quick. We did this not to feel better about what we were doing, but because we felt it was the right thing to do.

 

[Rosslaew]

Although that process seems better than what I have heard, I still think it's not the nicest way to go for the animal. However, "our" ways of breeding and slaugthering are not much better off, and animals feel a lot of stress from it, I guess we could still learn a thing or two from it.

It bothers me a lot because I feel that the people who are scandalized can be put basically in two categories :

• the people who are truely concerned with the well being of the animal. To them I take off my hat, for willing to fight a good fight. However, I feel it's not the right way to fight for this, since there is much to do with western meat industry, I guess that they should be clearer on what they are fighting against. It's not hallal meat, it's animal cruelty. I also fear they might be influenced by ...
• people who are more or less overtly just islamophobic (or racist, I think it goes pretty much hand in hand, not always of course, but often). I have a loathing for people who claim they are against hallal meat because animal cruelty when they really just want it removed because they are actually islamophobic. I believe they are quite numerous actually, though it's hard to get an estimate, since they might not even be aware themselves ...

Pretty much my thoughts. I do not acknowledge much of the previous posts, but I have learned a lot actually

• The name of Allah has to be mentioned before or during slaughtering, since the Creator is the granter and taker of life; the name must be said by a member of the Moslem faith.
• Meat slaughtered by people of the Jewish or Christian faith (People of the Book) may also be eaten.

Click to shrink...

I must say I wonder how those two points click together, does that imply that Jewish or Christians must still do the slaughter according to the other rules ? I especially think of kosher meat, since the ritual is almost the same, and the "people of the book" have the same god, just different names ans most importantly different prophets

 

[millawolf]

Yes I was a bit confused by that as well. From what I read it seems like the name of Allah must still be invoked, but I'm unsure.
@Rosslaew

 

[diCardinale]

Moslem

Click to shrink...

*Jumps off 5 story building while screaming "Its Muslim!"*
Silliness aside,

Here is the list of laws governing it:

• Any Muslim having reached puberty is allowed to slaughter after saying the name of Allah and facing Makkah (Mecca).
• The animal should not be thirsty at slaughter time.
• The knife must be sharp, to minimize the time and hence save the animal pain associated with the slaughtering process.
• The knife must not be sharpened in front of the animal because it may cause undue stress to that animal.
• The slaughter is to be done by cutting the throat of the animal or by piercing the hollow of the throat, causing the quickest death with the least amount of pain.
• The name of Allah has to be mentioned before or during slaughtering, since the Creator is the granter and taker of life; the name must be said by a member of the Muslim faith.
• Meat slaughtered by people of the Jewish or Christian faith (People of the Book) may also be eaten.
• The blood must be completely drawn from the carcass.

Click to shrink...

Most of it is correct, and the second to last bullet point is mostly correct, except

Actually, there's a difference of opinion on this. So the Hanafi, a sort of division like Christianity has Jehovahs Witness or catholic or Protestant, etc, are of the opinion that the animal has to be slaughtered in the name of Allah AND be a Muslim, but the Maliki only believe that you have to slaughter it in the name of Allah and you dont have to be Muslim.

Click to shrink...

A baby animal must also not be slaughtered in front of its mother/father and vice versa

Although that process seems better than what I have heard, I still think it's not the nicest way to go for the animal. However, "our" ways of breeding and slaugthering are not much better off, and animals feel a lot of stress from it, I guess we could still learn a thing or two from it.

It bothers me a lot because I feel that the people who are scandalized can be put basically in two categories :

• the people who are truely concerned with the well being of the animal. To them I take off my hat, for willing to fight a good fight. However, I feel it's not the right way to fight for this, since there is much to do with western meat industry, I guess that they should be clearer on what they are fighting against. It's not hallal meat, it's animal cruelty. I also fear they might be influenced by ...
• people who are more or less overtly just islamophobic (or racist, I think it goes pretty much hand in hand, not always of course, but often). I have a loathing for people who claim they are against hallal meat because animal cruelty when they really just want it removed because they are actually islamophobic. I believe they are quite numerous actually, though it's hard to get an estimate, since they might not even be aware themselves ...

Pretty much my thoughts. I do not acknowledge much of the previous posts, but I have learned a lot actually

I must say I wonder how those two points click together, does that imply that Jewish or Christians must still do the slaughter according to the other rules ? I especially think of kosher meat, since the ritual is almost the same, and the "people of the book" have the same god, just different names ans most importantly different prophets

Click to shrink...

Yes, Muslims have almost the exact same eating restrictions as the Jews, except Jewish people can drink wine/beer/etc.
And for the well being of the animal, refer to my previous post about how we Muslims do it.

Note: Thank you all for not going "Dem Maslams a' gonna tak ova da world wit dere 'Alal meat!"

 

[The Genie]

Note: Thank you all for not going "Dem Maslams a' gonna tak ova da world wit dere 'Alal meat!"

Click to shrink...

xD You're welcome. It's just meat, but killed in a different way and in the name of Allah. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Rosslaew]

And for the well being of the animal, refer to my previous post about how we Muslims do it.

Click to shrink...

I understood, that's one of the things I learned, it's not as bad as I had been told, it's very informative
However, although the death is quick, I would prefer instant death, or unconscious death, that's my only comment ont that. Note than in industrial killing, the death is instant, but the animal is really stressed before, which does not make it better, more likely worse!

 

[millawolf]

Sorry @MrScafuto That was a copy/paste from one of the sites I was reading. I hope you know that I meant no disrespect. I know it's Muslim. I'm not ignant I swear! ( That one was on purpose)
Ninja edit: changed the previous post to correct spelling.

 

[Alj23]

For it to be authenticate (I guess that would be the right word) Halal meat, each and every animal killed to produce the meat would have to be killed in a very non efficient way, from a business standpoint. I feel any place that says they use Halal meat just slaps the name on there to appeal to a certain group.

 

[millawolf]

For it to be authenticate (I guess that would be the right word) Halal meat, each and every animal killed to produce the meat would have to be killed in a very non efficient way, from a business standpoint. I feel any place that says they use Halal meat just slaps the name on there to appeal to a certain group.

Click to shrink...

I agree that it is not efficient for a large chain to do so. However little "mom & pop" stores may be legit. It's the same for the whole "organic" craze.

 

[diCardinale]

For it to be authenticate (I guess that would be the right word) Halal meat, each and every animal killed to produce the meat would have to be killed in a very non efficient way, from a business standpoint. I feel any place that says they use Halal meat just slaps the name on there to appeal to a certain group.

Click to shrink...

I agree that it is not efficient for a large chain to do so. However little "mom & pop" stores may be legit. It's the same for the whole "organic" craze.

Click to shrink...

There are actual many companies that do wide scale commercial sales of Halal meat, an example of one would be Harris Ranch.

 

[diCardinale]

Sorry @MrScafuto That was a copy/paste from one of the sites I was reading. I hope you know that I meant no disrespect. I know it's Muslim. I'm not ignant I swear! ( That one was on purpose)
Ninja edit: changed the previous post to correct spelling.

Click to shrink...

Oh don't worry, I figured that much. No offence taken, its just a bit annoying with all the mispronunciations of 'Muslim' in the US,

 

[Tuxyz]

I find the entire argument to be foolish in the extreme - there is nothing 'humane' about the world. Sharks literally rip their prey apart, and I'm sure you cow is overjoyed that it wasn't able to FEEL dying... either way, both the sharks dinner and ours ended up dead, so why do we complain about the way it died?

Click to shrink...

What? Would you not prefer to reduce the pain in this world, whether it be animals or humans?

But that doesn't have any effect on the end result: the shark rips it's dinner in half, killing it. Humans chop off the head of a fish, killing it. There is no difference in result, only in method, and the only ones who feel better for it are humans, who can pretend that because it wasn't 'too painful' it's perfectly fine to have killed that fish. There is no difference for the fish, which dies either way.

Click to shrink...

Would you not prefer to die quickly? While you may not agree with the rationalizing of killing the animal, killing it fast does reduce the amount of pain that it feels.

Humans are egoistic, yes, everything we do in the end we do because we benefit from it in some way, but that does not make good actions any less good, because whether or not they are made because you want to feel better yourself, they do improve the world, killing animals in a humane way > killing them in a non-humane way.

 

[Waminer]

But that doesn't have any effect on the end result: the shark rips it's dinner in half, killing it. Humans chop off the head of a fish, killing it. There is no difference in result, only in method, and the only ones who feel better for it are humans, who can pretend that because it wasn't 'too painful' it's perfectly fine to have killed that fish. There is no difference for the fish, which dies either way.

Click to shrink...

What you are saying is the ends of killing something justify the means. However lets say I am a random general. I defeat the nation of Scumtopia in a war through a large pitched battle between our two military forces killing 100 000 enemy soldiers. I then proceed to attempt to win the hearts and minds of the occupied civilians to prevent a resistance movement. Is that the same thing as me invading the smaller nation of Survivistan avoiding direct military contact while raping, murdering and looting civilians until the government surrenders for the good of it's people, followed by me placing all those of a certain bellicose ethnic/religious group in death camps to prevent resistance killing around 100 000 innocent men, women and children?

While this is a drastic comparison to the death of a cow to that of a a person it is the same logical process that says that we should attempt to kill anyone/anything humanely/fairly and only when necessary.

(By the way, in a previous thread about religion, I believe you said you were Buddhist, and excusing my gross lack of knowledge on Buddhism would that not mean you risk killing a deceased family member/friend horribly when you kill an animal?)

 

[Mecharic]

What you are saying is the ends of killing something justify the means. However lets say I am a random general. I defeat the nation of Scumtopia in a war through a large pitched battle between our two military forces killing 100 000 enemy soldiers. I then proceed to attempt to win the hearts and minds of the occupied civilians to prevent a resistance movement. Is that the same thing as me invading the smaller nation of Survivistan avoiding direct military contact while raping, murdering and looting civilians until the government surrenders for the good of it's people, followed by me placing all those of a certain bellicose ethnic/religious group in death camps to prevent resistance killing around 100 000 innocent men, women and children?

While this is a drastic comparison to the death of a cow to that of a a person it is the same logical process that says that we should attempt to kill anyone/anything humanely/fairly and only when necessary.

(By the way, in a previous thread about religion, I believe you said you were Buddhist, and excusing my gross lack of knowledge on Buddhism would that not mean you risk killing a deceased family member/friend horribly when you kill an animal?)

Click to shrink...

My argument wasn't 'be a cruel as possible' it was only that there is no special reason except our (human) self pleasure in not causing them undo pain. Not arguing for it, just arguing that the people arguing against it should come up with better arguments than "it's more humane".

And yes, I am a (loose) Buddhist. That doesn't mean I can't eat meat (I do love my burgers...) and personally I see it as being just a part of the world. Nothing I do is going to stop death from existing, so there is no reason to avoid meat (since all creatures will die anyway). Adding to that, even animals are reincarnated, so perhaps by eating "my family member" I just give them a chance to become an eagle or a dolphin instead of a cow or a chicken.

 

[Rinus]

ACTUALLY WAIT A SECOND.
I'm not sure if this has been stated before, but:
People oppose this because the killing is "Inhumane?"
That is not a viable argument.
Companies fatten up chickens and cattle in "farms" that are basically sheds.
I would much rather prefer the meat I eat to be from a cow that was in a open farm, and was not cruelly fattened up, before being killed using a Halal method, than eat meat from a cow that was fattened up, and when it was old and bloated enough, was "humanly" killed.

 

[Rosslaew]

I totally agree with you on this. I'm pretty sure the process that actually happens for many people is :

1. they don't like it they don't really know why (hint : because xenophobia, in the original meaning)
2. they are told that it's inhumane
3. they embrace the argument, because now they have a justification for their dislike that sounds pretty good

 

[Tuxyz]

My argument wasn't 'be a cruel as possible' it was only that there is no special reason except our (human) self pleasure in not causing them undo pain.

Click to shrink...

Then what reason can there be? Economic benefit? Everything that we do in the end comes down to ourselves, but we are not primitive beasts, we can think beyond that, we can feel bad for the animals and make sure that they feel as little pain as possible.

Honestly that argument was horrible bullshit and holds no real worth.

Not arguing for it, just arguing that the people arguing against it should come up with better arguments than "it's more humane".

Click to shrink...

And right about here I realized that you cannot argue at all, if you are going to dismiss arguments just because they come down to human comfort in the end then you better dismiss every single argument, because we only do things for ourselves.


Searching for videos of halal slaughter only gives me videos showing unhumane slaughter, anyone got videos of halal meat being produced humanely? PM me the link if you don't think it's SFW enough to post here.

 

[Hero_of_Mythra]

We have a beleif here that if you Sacrifice an animal (Specifically goats and sheep, because their ears are long enough) you must cover it's eyes with it's own ears. It will calm down and Submit to Allah as if it knows it is a gift for him. I'm not sure if it's done by other muslims, but We specifically do this on one day, Eid Al-Adha, I beleive it translates to 'Day of Sacrifice'. It's meant to be thanks that we can finally eat properly, as that day is at the end of the month of Ramadan. We then eat the sheep/goat while not wasting anything but bone and anything unedible. (Barbecued sheep testicle is delicious, by the way.) We think that because the animal surrenders and knows it is to be slaughtered, it feels more humane.