Pork with your brutally slaughtered sausages?

[Mojooo]

McWigglebum4th said:

I find it laughable that people are perfectly happy about this



Providing they have a cuddle before they get shoved in a machine that dunks their head in an electrified bath before being dragged through a machine that cuts their head off

I've seen numerous halal slaughterings and they don't seem that painful to me - the animal bleeds outs and has some muscle movement (involuntary presumably) but they don't appear to be in pain.

As you say, they often suffer way more during life anyway.

As for UK slaughtering - I have seen numerous videos of animals squealing when they are taking into the slaughtering room and see other animals being bolted on the head. How is that less painful than having your neck sliced. To negate this you could slaughter each animal in isolation but that would take too much time and money.......

[Colonial]

mph1977 said:

exactly , criticism of Halal is purely religious / racist based

Especially when it is always about Halal, rather than Kosher.

If you have an issue with poor treatment of animals, only buy from a source you can trust such as a small, local farmer.

If you buy your meat from the supermarket the sheer hypocrisy of claiming to care about the welfare of animals is just pathetic.

[Mr_B]

6 Pages in and it's back to the usual " your picking on Muslims, you nasty racist people ". It's a pity that no one else is even bothered we are talking about a primary school here were religiously slaughterd meat is needed, for kids that have no bloody clue on religion and animal welfare, just forced upon them by stupid adults.

It would bother me none if this was pre-stun halal, because that's pretty much the same as regular stuff, it just gets the silly name to keep those who pretend to have a religion where its needed happy.
True religiously slaughtered meat has no place in the UK today and should not be in the food chain unlabled.

[Bill]

It's the same with people claiming the hunting with dogs ban isn't about class.

[Countdown]

Mr_B said:

6 Pages in and it's back to the usual " your picking on Muslims, you nasty racist people ". .

Not sure why really.

The thread started out with a bit of schadenfreude about Muslims eating pork by mistake. Then there were worries about them getting on the compensation bandwagon, then there were posts about "pandering" to Muslims who were "demanding" we "apologise" and finally we have posters saying this isn't anti-Muslim, it's about animal welfare. Innit.

I hope you can understand my scepticism

[McWigglebum4th]

Mr_B said:

6 Pages in and it's back to the usual " your picking on Muslims, you nasty racist people ". It's a pity that no one else is even bothered we are talking about a primary school here were religiously slaughterd meat is needed, for kids that have no bloody clue on religion and animal welfare, just forced upon them by stupid adults.

So if we have a school where there is a alot of Muslim kids what should we feed them or should we not feed them?

Mr_B said:

True religiously slaughtered meat has no place in the UK today and should not be in the food chain unlabled.

So if two animals have a painless death but one has someone playing mumbo jumbo on a tape player could you please tell me what the difference is?

[Bill]

I'd love to know why anyone with concerns for animal welfare would feed their kids what will inevitably be the cheapest intensively reared ste available?

[M@verick]

mph1977 said:

exactly , criticism of Halal is purely religious / racist based

Well thats quite an assumption. A similar assumption would be for someone to say "every time the subject of halal meat comes up, no objective argument can be formed because it descends into pointlessness as the race card is always played" - neither statement is true.

The issue at hand started out as goods being labelled X but actually containing Y, this is wrong - it isnt what the customer expected.

The side issue being discussed above is centred on eateries selling *only* one form of meat. Personally, and this is just my opinion as the above quote is just yours - I dont understand why any religiously sanctioned food should become the norm above all others. If Kosher, Halal or any other form of "blessed" meat is the only option somewhere - and especially somewhere such as schools where choice isnt a option for the clientelle - then surely this isnt any measure of equality ?.
Quite aside from my thoughts on Halal/Kosher/whatever slaughter - dont you think it would be insulting or wrong for a devout Christian, Jew, Muslim to only be allowed to eat food which had been blessed by a a different faith ?.

Equally, speaking hypothetically - what about an aethist who for whatever reason would prefer NOT to eat religiously blessed food as they disagree with ritual slaughter. What about their children going to a school which only provides blessed food stuffs ?.

We either have to cater (excuse the pun) for each group, or none at all. If we dont do this I do not understand how this doesnt represent some form of discrimination against person XYZ - in the same way that not providing a religiously blessed "option" does.

R.

[Bill]

You don't have to eat meat.

[mattnunn]

Bill said:

You don't have to eat meat.

Exactly and if you do its method of slaughter is largely irrelevant in terms of the animals pov.

You'll find that a lot of the arguments and reasoning behind the "happy meat" organic free range, religious blessing etc... coincide with higher profit margins for distributors and farmers, they really are little more than marketting gimmicks. You don't have to eat meat.

[McWigglebum4th]

M@verick said:

Equally, speaking hypothetically - what about an aethist who for whatever reason would prefer NOT to eat religiously blessed food as they disagree with ritual slaughter. What about their children going to a school which only provides blessed food stuffs ?.

If you are an aethist why would you object to someone dancing the hokey kokey around your steak providing you steak is a steak and it became the steak in the method that causes minimal suffering

[odyssey2200]

Bill said:

You don't have to eat meat.

Quite right,

The Muslims, Jews etc could have the veggie option, instead.

[Bill]

And if that was the more commercially astute option then that's how it would be. Do you see the paradox in complaining about one tiny aspect of animal husbandry while ignoring the other 99% of its miserable life?

[Caulkhead]

Bill said:

And if that was the more commercially astute option then that's how it would be. Do you see the paradox in complaining about one tiny aspect of animal husbandry while ignoring the other 99% of its miserable life?

There's no paradox at all as the 99% is purely to produce cheaper meat and therefore feed more humans for less money. The 1% is because the sky fairy said so.

[Jasandjules]

Bill said:

And if that was the more commercially astute option then that's how it would be. Do you see the paradox in complaining about one tiny aspect of animal husbandry while ignoring the other 99% of its miserable life?

But who says that some of us DO accept other pain/suffering etc. ?

I buy my meat from a local farmer and local butcher and even raw meat for the dogs from a local abbatoir. My meat is free range/organic. It IS more expensive but it is worth it.

[Bill]

Jasandjules said:

But who says that some of us DO accept other pain/suffering etc. ?

I buy my meat from a local farmer and local butcher and even raw meat for the dogs from a local abbatoir. My meat is free range/organic. It IS more expensive but it is worth it.

I certainly didn't. I'm just pointing out that school meals will use the cheapest possible and complaining that some mumbo jumbo is played as it's slaughtered while ignoring how the animal is raised is hypocritical at best.

Edited by Bill on Monday 18th March 21:02

[McWigglebum4th]

Caulkhead said:

There's no paradox at all as the 99% is purely to produce cheaper meat and therefore feed more humans for less money. The 1% is because the sky fairy said so.

There is very little evidence that being stunned before having their throat slit is that much more unpleasant then having their throat slit by a skilled slaughterman with a sharp knife.

So is it the death people are objecting to or the guy doing the hokey cokey in the corner?

[Jasandjules]

Bill said:

I certainly didn't. I'm just pointing out that school meals will be use the cheapest possible and complaining that some mambo jumbo is played as it's slaughtered while ignoring how the animal is raised is hypocritical at best.

Personally I don't give a damn what is said - it is what is done that counts. As long as the suffering is kept to an absolute minimum at all points in the raising and slaughtering of the animal.

Not stunning is not doing that at all and is therefore unnaceptable to me. I don't care what imaginary friend it is referring to, whether it be catholics, protestants, buddhists, muslims, jews or even jedi... The bottom line is the welfare of the animal to me.

[Countdown]

Jasandjules said:

The bottom line is the welfare of the animal to me.

You're in a minority. Given the slow decline of high street butchers I get the impression that the majority of people couldn't care less about the welfare of the animal as long as the meat was cheap.

[Caulkhead]

McWigglebum4th said:

Caulkhead said:

There's no paradox at all as the 99% is purely to produce cheaper meat and therefore feed more humans for less money. The 1% is because the sky fairy said so.

There is very little evidence that being stunned before having their throat slit is that much more unpleasant then having their throat slit by a skilled slaughterman with a sharp knife.

So is it the death people are objecting to or the guy doing the hokey cokey in the corner?

Which is why I didn't claim there was. My point is there is a practical result of intensive farming even though it may cause suffering to animals. There is no practical result to observing the wishes of an imaginary deity and as such no paradox or hypocrisy exists.