First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next  Last
Post Reply Muslim group asks that food shelves provide Halal option
2742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / The Nightosphere
Offline
Posted 12/13/15 , edited 12/13/15
This thread.

8701 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Definitely not EU
Offline
Posted 12/13/15 , edited 12/13/15

hum1d wrote:


DanteVSTheWorld wrote:


kinga750 wrote:

In my state you get a card and buy what you want with it. Minnesota has a similar program called SNAP.

This seems to be about providing halal (kosher) options at local food banks. It has little to do with welfare. They aren't demanding anything, and they don't want to change the existing options. They just want an added shelf for halal foods. They are citizens and have a right to lobby for their interests, just like the rest of us.

It's a very misleading article that is made more clear if you take the time to watch the video it references.


Yeah they just want their Halal foods, where animals are slaughtered stone-aged style. Why would anyone be against this? Those poor people just want their Halal foods


Animals regardless how we see it, suffer less with a slit. It may look horrific and barbaric, but I have seen the 2 extreme opposite types of abattoirs, believe me, the face on the dying animal is as sad, bad and ugly as the other method. Also it's much more healthier and clean to drain the blood from the animal the halal or kosher way. The bolt or electric is a shock, causes major adrenaline rush, and causes blood clots, because the brain doesn't know what's happening, and the heart doesn't know how to beat any more and the blood doesn't pump around the veins properly, so a lot more blood in the veins will be trapped compared to halal and kosher. It's better the animal knows its dying as part of eating a cleaner and healthier meat.

And finally- it's the price you pay for the life you chose. So if you want meat to eat, there will never really be any humane way to eat it. It's got the price of being an inhumane type of food. For God's sake if you are so offended by it, then turn to being a vegetarian.


Lmao okay. Would you rather have a gun to your head stunning you unconscious instantly, or your throat slit? Where did you get that shit from? The stone age methods are risky because everything has to be precise, the blade needs to be in perfect condition at all times, any slight error means a very traumatic experience for the animal. And don't tell me of 'cleanliness' as if that's an issue with the updated methods, because if that were true, everyone would be getting aids or something from eating meat, which they're not. The blood is also drained anyway while the animal is hung upside down, which is much more effective and clean that just slitting the animals throat while it gallops on the floor in it's own blood.


kinga750 wrote:


DanteVSTheWorld wrote:
Yeah they just want their Halal foods, where animals are slaughtered stone-aged style. Why would anyone be against this? Those poor people just want their Halal foods


Article on Islamic slaughtering techniques: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/may/08/what-does-halal-method-animal-slaughter-involve

Slaughtering animals is never pretty. The halal regulations are meant to provide a standard to ensure that animals are slaughtered humanely and then safely processed. This is how standards and best practices were enforced historically. I agree it's an outdated standard and I don't like tradition being enforced so rigidly, but it's their right to believe what they want.

It's no more cruel than some of our own methods, which have been criticized as well.



Yeah it is their right to believe what they want, but so long as they live in a western country they should integrate or gtfo.
3444 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / M / Ente Isla
Offline
Posted 12/13/15

DanteVSTheWorld wrote:

The stone age methods are risky because everything has to be precise, the blade needs to be in perfect condition at all times, any slight error means a very traumatic experience for the animal.


Couldn't you say the same of our methods? If a machine jams or has a malfunction of some sort, wouldn't the animal suffer then as well?

Furthermore, if the meat is prepared by professionals then wouldn't the chance of that happening be low? A probability of error exists, yes, but if the person knows what they're doing then the chance of them goofing it up would be slim. Should we ban hunting because somebody could end up screwing up their shot and causing the animal agony in its dying moments? After all, it's not as if hunting's necessary in a society that breeds cows, chickens, pigs, turkeys, etc. The only time we need to hunt is to keep the population of a certain species in check.
15248 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / San Francisco
Offline
Posted 12/13/15 , edited 12/13/15
I don't think food banks should be expected to cater to the needs of anyone. They are dependent on donations given to them. Telling companies that they have to abide by certain killing methods because a group of people won't want to eat those donations is unfair.

If the Muslims don't like it, how about getting jobs so you can buy all the Halal food you can eat? Walmart is hiring for the Christmas season.
8701 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Definitely not EU
Offline
Posted 12/13/15

GrandmasterCoolio wrote:


DanteVSTheWorld wrote:

The stone age methods are risky because everything has to be precise, the blade needs to be in perfect condition at all times, any slight error means a very traumatic experience for the animal.


Couldn't you say the same of our methods? If a machine jams or has a malfunction of some sort, wouldn't the animal suffer then as well?

Furthermore, if the meat is prepared by professionals then wouldn't the chance of that happening be low? A probability of error exists, yes, but if the person knows what they're doing then the chance of them goofing it up would be slim. Should we ban hunting because somebody could end up screwing up their shot and causing the animal agony in its dying moments? After all, it's not as if hunting's necessary in a society that breeds cows, chickens, pigs, turkeys, etc. The only time we need to hunt is to keep the population of a certain species in check.


No, because a machine doesn't have feelings, it doesn't matter what side of the bed it woke up on, it's programmed to do what it does, so the chance of error is significantly less. If there was actually problems, then obviously things would change but they haven't. If it's not broke, don't try and fix it.

Posted 12/13/15

Akage-chan wrote:

I don't think food banks should be expected to cater to the needs of anyone. They are dependent on donations given to them. Telling companies that they have to abide by certain killing methods because a group of people won't want to eat those donations is unfair.

If the Muslims don't like it, how about getting jobs so you can buy all the Halal food you can eat? Walmart is hiring for the Christmas season.


You make it sound as if people on welfare don't work.
2361 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / athens, greece.
Offline
Posted 12/13/15 , edited 12/13/15


So you think it is less painful to shoot a bolt into a sheep’s brain or to ring a chicken’s neck than to slit its throat? To watch the procedure does not objectively tell us what the animal feels. The scientific facts A team at the university of Hannover in Germany examined these claims through the use of EEG and ECG records during slaughter. Several electrodes were surgically implanted at various points of the skull of all the animals used in the experiment and they were then allowed to recover for several weeks. Some of the animals were subsequently slaughtered the halal way by making a swift, deep incision with a sharp knife on the neck, cutting the jugular veins and carotid arteries of both sides together with the trachea and esophagus but leaving the spinal cord intact. The remainder were stunned before slaughter using a captive bolt pistol method as is customary in Western slaughterhouses.

The EEG and ECG recordings allowed to monitor the condition of the brain and heart throughout. The Halal method with the halal method of slaughter, there was not change in the EEG graph for the first three seconds after the incision was made, indicating that the animal did not feel any pain from the cut itself. This is not surprising. Often, if we cut ourselves with a sharp implement, we do not notice until some time later. The following three seconds were characterised by a condition of deep sleep-like unconciousness brought about by the draining of large quantities of blood from the body. Thereafter the EEG recorded a zero reading, indicating no pain at all, yet at that time the heart was still beating and the body convulsing vigorously as a reflex reaction of the spinal cord. It is this phase which is mavost unpleasant to onlookers who are falsely convinced that the animal suffers whilst its brain does actually no longer record any sensual messages.

Using the Western method, the animals were apparently unconscious after stunning, and this method of dispatch would appear to be much more peaceful for the onlooker. However, the EEG readings indicated severe pain immediately after stunning. Whereas in the first example, the animal ceases to feel pain due to the brain starvation of blood and oxygen – a brain death, to put it in laymen’s terms – the second example first causes a stoppage of the heart whilst the animal still feels pain. However, there are no unsightly convulsions, which not only means that there is more blood retention in the meat, but also that this method lends itself much more conveniently to the efficiency demands of modern mass slaughter procedures. It is so much easier to dispatch an animal on the conveyor belt, if it does not move. Not all is what it seems, then. Those who want to outlaw Islamic slaughter (people like you), arguing for a humane method of killing animals for food, are actually more concerned about the feelings of people than those of the animals on whose behalf they appear to speak. The stunning method makes mass butchery easier and looks more palatable for the consumer who can deceive himself that the animal did not feel any pain when he goes to buy his cleanly wrapped parcel of meat from the supermarket. Islamic slaughter, on the other hand, does not try to deny that meat consumption means that animals have to die, but is designed to ensure that their loss of life is achieved with a minimum amount of pain.

Again- if you're so fuckin' offended by animal cruelty, become a vegetarian.

15081 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/13/15

Akage-chan wrote:

I don't think food banks should be expected to cater to the needs of anyone. They are dependent on donations given to them. Telling companies that they have to abide by certain killing methods because a group of people won't want to eat those donations is unfair.


OTOH, if food banks identified Gluten-Free (or even standard Kosher) foods, no one would blink.

It's just a service to the customers, unless you happen to be Muslim and think everything is a "conspiracy of intolerance".
3444 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / M / Ente Isla
Offline
Posted 12/13/15

DanteVSTheWorld wrote:

No, because a machine doesn't have feelings, it doesn't matter what side of the bed it woke up on, it's programmed to do what it does, so the chance of error is significantly less. If there was actually problems, then obviously things would change but they haven't. If it's not broke, don't try and fix it.



I'm not sure what having emotions has to do with anything. I suppose you could argue that he/she might have a lot on their mind, but I don't think someone's going to zone out in the middle of stabbing a deer's throat with a knife -- especially when they've been doing it for years and know all the proper precautions and steps to take.

It seems like you're grasping at straws here.
1322 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
102 / M / Hicksville Ohio(n...
Offline
Posted 12/13/15

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

I don't see what's wrong. Religion is a big part of people's lives. Saying they can't partake because they're impoverished seems harsh. People seem to harp on Sharia law, but I don't see how this "directly" affects people other than 150k. It's not like gays are being stoned in the open street here
.


Some copy paste from Reuters
“Honor killing in America: DOJ report says growing problem is hidden in stats,”

Detective Chris Boughey, of Peoria, Ariz., calls Oct. 20, 2009, a day that “changed my life forever.” That was the day Iraqi immigrant Faleh Almaleki murdered his daughter, Noor Almaleki, by running her over with his vehicle for becoming “too Westernized.”

In 2012, police arrested the mother, father and sister of 19-year-old Aiya Altameemi in Phoenix after they allegedly beat, restrained and burned her for reportedly declining an arranged marriage with an older man and talking to another boy.

In 2009, Aasiya Hassan was beheaded by her husband, Muzzammil Hassan, at the Buffalo, N.Y., Muslim TV station where they worked for allegedly requesting a divorce.

In the 2008 case in Irving, Yasser Said, a cab driver from Egypt, is suspected of shooting his two daughters, Amina, 18, and Sarah Said, 17, in the back of his taxi because they were dating non-Muslim boys and embracing Western culture.

Honor violence is an even bigger problem in other parts of the Western world, with a reported 11,000 cases of honor violence recorded in the United Kingdom in the last five years while incidents also have been documented in Canada, Germany, France and Sweden.

One of the biggest challenges, Boughey said, is the social pressures to not be deemed “culturally insensitive.” That can keep social service agencies from alerting law enforcement when honor violence crosses their radar.

“Some agencies won’t intervene even after these young women have come forward,” he said. “I am not quite sure when we as a country decided that it was more important to be politically correct than doing the right thing.”…

Yep, nothing to see here. Please move along!
9218 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / USA
Offline
Posted 12/13/15 , edited 12/13/15
I don't know if the cow that this roast beef sandwich came from suffered or not, but it sure is tasty!
Posted 12/13/15

hicksvilledave wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:

I don't see what's wrong. Religion is a big part of people's lives. Saying they can't partake because they're impoverished seems harsh. People seem to harp on Sharia law, but I don't see how this "directly" affects people other than 150k. It's not like gays are being stoned in the open street here
.


Some copy paste from Reuters
“Honor killing in America: DOJ report says growing problem is hidden in stats,”

Detective Chris Boughey, of Peoria, Ariz., calls Oct. 20, 2009, a day that “changed my life forever.” That was the day Iraqi immigrant Faleh Almaleki murdered his daughter, Noor Almaleki, by running her over with his vehicle for becoming “too Westernized.”

In 2012, police arrested the mother, father and sister of 19-year-old Aiya Altameemi in Phoenix after they allegedly beat, restrained and burned her for reportedly declining an arranged marriage with an older man and talking to another boy.

In 2009, Aasiya Hassan was beheaded by her husband, Muzzammil Hassan, at the Buffalo, N.Y., Muslim TV station where they worked for allegedly requesting a divorce.

In the 2008 case in Irving, Yasser Said, a cab driver from Egypt, is suspected of shooting his two daughters, Amina, 18, and Sarah Said, 17, in the back of his taxi because they were dating non-Muslim boys and embracing Western culture.

Honor violence is an even bigger problem in other parts of the Western world, with a reported 11,000 cases of honor violence recorded in the United Kingdom in the last five years while incidents also have been documented in Canada, Germany, France and Sweden.

One of the biggest challenges, Boughey said, is the social pressures to not be deemed “culturally insensitive.” That can keep social service agencies from alerting law enforcement when honor violence crosses their radar.

“Some agencies won’t intervene even after these young women have come forward,” he said. “I am not quite sure when we as a country decided that it was more important to be politically correct than doing the right thing.”…

Yep, nothing to see here. Please move along!

Which has nothing to do with legislating for Sharia Law, right?
8701 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Definitely not EU
Offline
Posted 12/13/15 , edited 12/13/15

hum1d wrote:




That study was based in 1978, things have gotten better since then. Schulz himself (the leader on the EEG measurements project) even said "the stunning technique may not have functioned properly". If we was to have another study done today, it would prove our way is better than Islam's way.

Also don't try the 'herr derr just become a vegetarian' comment. Just because I eat meat doesn't mean I don't like animals, so don't try disregard my stance with bullshit simplified assumptions. So then, now that I've debunked everything you just said, is there anything else?


GrandmasterCoolio wrote:


DanteVSTheWorld wrote:

No, because a machine doesn't have feelings, it doesn't matter what side of the bed it woke up on, it's programmed to do what it does, so the chance of error is significantly less. If there was actually problems, then obviously things would change but they haven't. If it's not broke, don't try and fix it.



I'm not sure what having emotions has to do with anything. I suppose you could argue that he/she might have a lot on their mind, but I don't think someone's going to zone out in the middle of stabbing a deer's throat with a knife -- especially when they've been doing it for years and know all the proper precautions and steps to take.

It seems like you're grasping at straws here.


No I'm not, there's a reason most things are done by computers these days, because it's more seamless and less prone to error like us humans.
11012 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/13/15


Wow....Didn't realize so many fox viewers were on crunchyroll...Some of you guys must be afraid of your own shadow..
2361 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / athens, greece.
Offline
Posted 12/13/15

DanteVSTheWorld wrote:


hum1d wrote:




That study was based in 1978, things have gotten better since then. Schulz himself (the leader on the EEG measurements project) even said "the stunning technique may not have functioned properly". If we was to have another study done today, it would prove our way is better than Islam's way.

Also don't try the 'herr derr just become a vegetarian' comment. Just because I eat meat doesn't mean I don't like animals, so don't try disregard my stance with bullshit simplified assumptions. So then, now that I've debunked everything you just said, is there anything else?


GrandmasterCoolio wrote:


DanteVSTheWorld wrote:

No, because a machine doesn't have feelings, it doesn't matter what side of the bed it woke up on, it's programmed to do what it does, so the chance of error is significantly less. If there was actually problems, then obviously things would change but they haven't. If it's not broke, don't try and fix it.



I'm not sure what having emotions has to do with anything. I suppose you could argue that he/she might have a lot on their mind, but I don't think someone's going to zone out in the middle of stabbing a deer's throat with a knife -- especially when they've been doing it for years and know all the proper precautions and steps to take.

It seems like you're grasping at straws here.


No I'm not, there's a reason most things are done by computers these days, because it's more seamless and less prone to error like us humans.


You haven't debunked anything? You basically just said- "That experiment is outdated. Because I'm the only intelligent one here, I know that our way is better." Where's the proof? The facts? Heh. Okay, I'm done with you.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.