Pork is the latest front in Europe's culture wars

by Guest Tue Apr 15, 2014 10:36 am

First topic message reminder :

Pork is the latest front in Europe's culture wars
The far right is fixated on pork and is using it as an excuse to target yet another aspect of Muslim life

Following its significant gains in last month's local elections, the French Front National leader, Marine Le Pen, swiftly announced that school cafeterias would no longer serve non-pork substitution meals to children living in towns won by FN candidates. Targeting Muslims for another ritual round of public humiliation, while also excluding Jewish children, Le Pen declared: "There is no reason for religion to enter the public sphere."

While Le Pen framed this fixation on the dietary requirements of her fellow citizens as a defence of state secularism, the FN mayor of the south-western town of Arveyres, Benoit Gheysens, suggested the move was simply to cut costs and to prevent "staff being distressed" by excessive food waste. This mix of environmental concern and secular commitment illustrates just how eclectic the far right can be in its defence of order, and Le Pen's conversion to republican values is shaped by this strategic elasticity.

As recently as 2011, Le Pen was threatened with prosecution for describing Muslims praying in the streets as comparable to the Nazi occupation of France, rather than opting to oppose it as an assault on the neutrality of public space. Her subsequent cultivation of a rightwing defence of secularism is based on the realisation that the supposedly universal values of the republic can be appropriated as a productive front in the struggle for national identity.

The prime reason for this conversion, of course, is that it provides a fertile opportunity for consistently reproducing public controversies regarding the "Muslim problem" and its threat to national identity.

As Arun Kundnani says in his newbook, The Muslims are Coming, the social and political construction of racism in the post-9/11 period has relied in part on translating "cultural markers associated with Muslimness (forms of dress, rituals, languages) … into racial signifiers".

This constant manufacture of controversy is a ritual whereby yet another dimension of Muslim life can be stereotyped, held up for public scrutiny and marked out as a problem that requires resolute political intervention. Symbols can be endlessly generated, leaving every cultural marker to be labelled as yet more evidence of the excessive demands of eternal foreigners on an overly tolerant "host".

Much of this pig-whistle politics, which is becoming more prevalent across western Europe, is opportunistic. Heinz-Christian Strache of the Austrian Freedom party, for instance, who in 2012 posted an antisemitic caricature on his Facebook page, also circulated a picture of himself with a roast suckling pig and the caption "Isst du Schwein, darfst du rein" (If you eat pork you can come in).

The Danish People's party, fully invested in a culture war over Danish values, was an early adopter of animal welfare in order to campaign against halal meat and has long sought to politicise the provision of halal options in nurseries as the "forced adoption" of Muslim tradition.

When it was reported last summer that some Copenhagen kindergartens, in consultation with parents, had stopped serving pork products, the DPP complained of discrimination against Danish food culture. The intensity of the resulting debate – and of the charge that only the DPP spoke for the silent majority victimised by overly indulged minorities – prompted the Social Democrat prime minister, Helle Thorning-Schmidt, into the absurd public affirmation of the importance of meatballs to Danish culture and identity.

That a centre-left politician competitively declares her fidelity to a meat product is a predictable effect of the European politics of integration of the last decade. Integration, for all its suggestion of a weighty national project, is in practice a series of public demands: they must do this, they shouldn't do that. Integration politics responds to the social anxieties of the neoliberal era by producing symbolic problems that can be politically addressed through cost-free symbolic action.

Yet, they are never cost-free for those racialised as the problem. It is, for instance, in this context that a sinister genre of direct action has developed around symbolically and physically imposing pork products on Muslims. The French "anti-white racism" group Bloc Identitaire has occupied mosques and tried to organise a march to kick back against the "racist refusal" of Muslims to eat pork.

In what it later, predictably, described as a joke, the Flemish Vlaams Belang stormed a food festival at a school in Schoten and reportedly forced pork sausages into the mouths of some children. When some enterprising young people in Helsinki wanted to humiliate an Afghan asylum seeker on hunger strike for 30 days in front of the Finnish parliament, they made a video of themselves inviting him to warm his hands on a fire before cooking sausages on it.

Pork has become a racist meme, endlessly adapted through practices of harassment: mosques in Europe have had pig's heads nailed to their doors, pork-filled envelopes sent in the mail,slices of ham rubbed on door handles, bacon slices slipped in the shoes of worshippers as they prayed.

This is the political context in which Le Pen's pig-whistle politics seeks a register, for all its lofty appeals to the conceits of the republic. And when the pork has been exhausted, a new affront, or burning source of resentment, will be produced.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/15/le-pen-pig-whistle-politics

On top of all that, the treatment of pigs to produce pork in Denmark is a disgrace. I love pork, but I always make sure I never buy Danish pork, would rather go hungry.

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:58 am

harvesmom wrote:Why is no one allowed a view on here without being branded a racist? Just wondering.... only its getting bloody tedious now.

Why are you detracting from the questions at hand, that is a copout answer, because why is it people deflect from the truth? Nobody especially me was casting anyone a racist, what I was casting people using halal as a valid example of humane rights on animals is an utter liar, because no animal is treated humanely by being slaughtered.

Please do not detract the debate with bollocks

Thank you

by Tommy Monk Fri Apr 18, 2014 2:13 am

Dodge, if the method used for killing an animal is so unimportant, as you say, then why such an issue if stopping doing it a way only a minority actually want but is given to majority of others against their wishes/beliefs/knowledge?
And why is this branded an attack when the giving of halal to all against their will was not?

by harvesmom Fri Apr 18, 2014 2:15 am

Didge wrote:
harvesmom wrote:Why is no one allowed a view on here without being branded a racist? Just wondering.... only its getting bloody tedious now.

Why are you detracting from the questions at hand, that is a copout answer, because why is it people deflect from the truth? Nobody especially me was casting anyone a racist, what I was casting people using halal as a valid example of humane rights on animals is an utter liar, because no animal is treated humanely by being slaughtered.

Please do not detract the debate with bollocks

Thank you

You said

Come on, we all know this has fuck all to do about methods, it has everything to do with you and others promoting a view about using similar arguments the Nazi's used on the Jews, to stereotype Muslims

What's that then?

And I think that cutting a fully conscious animals throat for religious purposes is barbaric. If you think that is 'bollocks' then so be it.

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 2:21 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Dodge, if the method used for killing an animal is so unimportant, as you say, then why such an issue if stopping doing it a way only a minority actually want but is given to majority of others against their wishes/beliefs/knowledge?

Where did I say it was an issue?
You state it is an issue, to Muslims and Jews they eat meat hat way, they cannot eat it any other, so to deny them is denying them not only a equality to a barbaric practice by butchering animals to scoff our faces with, but the only reason you wish to deny them this is you wish to use some lame argument about how the animal is killed, even though it is the exact same method, its throat cut. I do not know what is more stupid or absurd, people being idiots claiming the method is inhumane, to next saying they should not be allowed to eat something that is part of their faith, whilst they themselves have no issue stuffing their face with a Royal with cheese.

So again your argument is what? You are against accommodating food, when you yourself have no issue with denying an animal its right by killing it to feed people , or you want to complain you get meat which is slaughtered Matti by the same method all animals are killed, by their throat slit?

Your argument is absurd, as is others, again it is about a poor idiotic prejudice, which with the fact this method has gone on in this country for centuries shows it is nothing but prejudice.

So how about you actually answer my questions instead of avoiding them.

Try again

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 2:26 am

harvesmom wrote:
Didge wrote:

Why are you detracting from the questions at hand, that is a copout answer, because why is it people deflect from the truth? Nobody especially me was casting anyone a racist, what I was casting people using halal as a valid example of humane rights on animals is an utter liar, because no animal is treated humanely by being slaughtered.

Please do not detract the debate with bollocks

Thank you

You said

Come on, we all know this has fuck all to do about methods, it has everything to do with you and others promoting a view about using similar arguments the Nazi's used on the Jews, to stereotype Muslims

What's that then?

And I think that cutting a fully conscious animals throat for religious purposes is barbaric. If you think that is 'bollocks' then so be it.

Seriously I used to give you credit, where did I say people were racist?

Look again, I said people using similar arguments as the Nazi's, that does not mean racist, but prejudice, do you understand the difference or do I need to dumb it down for you?

I think a hypocritical poster not knowing that after an animal is stunned it has its throat slit is a real liar, because that liar must have no clue what it is like to have an electric shock and think there is no pain.

Please spare me the bull on humane, you have not the first clue what you are talking about, to kill the animal in the first place is inhumane, hence the point is utterly lost on you.

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 2:36 am

Be warned, this is not for the squeamish, but it might show you people claiming bullshit humane treatment about stunning are talking out of their arses.

by harvesmom Fri Apr 18, 2014 2:38 am

Ok Didge, I'm a Nazi, prejudiced, thick, a liar, hypocritical, don't have a clue what I'm talking about, and full of bollocks. Its been nice debating with you, can't wait for the next time Rolling Eyes

And after all that, I still think it is barbaric to cut the throat of a fully conscious animal for religious purposes so where did all the insults get you? And the RSPCA/BVA agree with me, but hey maybe you know better than all of them too eh.

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 2:42 am

harvesmom wrote:Ok Didge, I'm a Nazi, prejudiced, thick, a liar, hypocritical, don't have a clue what I'm talking about, and full of bollocks. Its been nice debating with you, can't wait for the next time

And after all that, I still think it is barbaric to cut the throat of a fully conscious animal for religious purposes so where did all the insults get you? And the RSPCA/BVA agree with me, but hey maybe you know better than all of them too eh.

Fuck me what an idiot, again I never called you or anyone a Nazi, seriously how thick are you?

I said and I will say this slowly for you as you seem to being an utter idiot:

You are using Similar arguments the Nazi's used against the Jews with prejudice

Stop being a muppet, I expect better of you, again all you are doing is avoiding every point I have made, repeat yourself and not counter and there is one word for that

Pathetic

Again there is nothing humane about killing an animal, what do you not understand about that if you eat meat?

Try again.

Stop detracting from the points, for goodness sake

by harvesmom Fri Apr 18, 2014 2:52 am

Didge wrote:
harvesmom wrote:Ok Didge, I'm a Nazi, prejudiced, thick, a liar, hypocritical, don't have a clue what I'm talking about, and full of bollocks. Its been nice debating with you, can't wait for the next time

And after all that, I still think it is barbaric to cut the throat of a fully conscious animal for religious purposes so where did all the insults get you? And the RSPCA/BVA agree with me, but hey maybe you know better than all of them too eh.

Fuck me what an idiot, again I never called you or anyone a Nazi, seriously how thick are you?

I said and I will say this slowly for you as you seem to being an utter idiot:

You are using Similar arguments the Nazi's used against the Jews with prejudice

Stop being a muppet, I expect better of you, again all you are doing is avoiding every point I have made, repeat yourself and not counter and there is one word for that

Pathetic

Again there is nothing humane about killing an animal, what do you not understand about that if you eat meat?

Try again.

Stop detracting from the points, for goodness sake

How many times do you want me to answer? Which part of my posts don't you understand? I'm typing this slowly for you now. Of course there is no nice way of killing an animal. There are however more humane ways than others. One of which is to stun the animal first. As agreed by the RSPCA and the BVA. I'm sorry if you don't get it now, I can't sit here all night repeating myself.

I just figured out what they mean by never argue with an idiot, he will beat you with experience....[/quote]

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 3:00 am

harvesmom wrote:
Didge wrote:

Fuck me what an idiot, again I never called you or anyone a Nazi, seriously how thick are you?

I said and I will say this slowly for you as you seem to being an utter idiot:

You are using Similar arguments the Nazi's used against the Jews with prejudice

Stop being a muppet, I expect better of you, again all you are doing is avoiding every point I have made, repeat yourself and not counter and there is one word for that

Pathetic

Again there is nothing humane about killing an animal, what do you not understand about that if you eat meat?

Try again.

Stop detracting from the points, for goodness sake

How many times do you want me to answer? Which part of my posts don't you understand? I'm typing this slowly for you now. Of course there is no nice way of killing an animal. There are however more humane ways than others. One of which is to stun the animal first. As agreed by the RSPCA and the BVA. I'm sorry if you don't get it now, I can't sit here all night repeating myself.

I just figured out what they mean by never argue with an idiot, he will beat you with experience....

[/quote]

PMSL there is more humane ways to kill an animal, really, did you ask the animal that if it wanted to be killed?

You still do not get it do you, you argue over a method, which no matter what is used is inhumane and then argue over one where both methods kill the animal the exact same way and where you use the views of people to back you without any sound argument, but rely on what the RSPCA say, when many others disagree with them?

Seriously,grow up and debate like an adult and then I have no reason to mock such an idiotic answer

Let me spell this out for you, neither way is humane, the animal with still feel pain, no matter for how small the time is they feel pain. Clearly this is lost on you, because they all feel pain for a split second, or as seen in the video, much longer and not even knocked out, showing any method, no mater how humane you think it is, has flaws.

Again please give me your views as to why and stop giving me silly answers.

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 3:14 am

Anyway no offense harvesmon, am going to bed, just disappointed.

a) that you think I am calling people racist here, when racism has no play on this, but xenophobic prejudice.

b) That you still do not grasp both methods have flaws, where the animals can still even be conscious after stunning, after they have been hurt with electrocution.

c) this shows there is more to this argument, because humanitarian grounds from meat eaters on methods.

Night and all the best

by eddie Fri Apr 18, 2014 9:53 am

Didge you were a bit rude to harves actually and she wasn't rude to you.

She is a real animal lover and her points are based on that, and not the "Muslim" aspect of it.

I can guarantee that I know her very well and she always takes people as she finds them and doesn't have a racist bone in her body x

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 10:28 am

Didge wrote:
harvesmom wrote:Ok Didge, I'm a Nazi, prejudiced, thick, a liar, hypocritical, don't have a clue what I'm talking about, and full of bollocks. Its been nice debating with you, can't wait for the next time

And after all that, I still think it is barbaric to cut the throat of a fully conscious animal for religious purposes so where did all the insults get you? And the RSPCA/BVA agree with me, but hey maybe you know better than all of them too eh.

Fuck me what an idiot, again I never called you or anyone a Nazi, seriously how thick are you?

I said and I will say this slowly for you as you seem to being an utter idiot:

You are using Similar arguments the Nazi's used against the Jews with prejudice

Stop being a muppet, I expect better of you, again all you are doing is avoiding every point I have made, repeat yourself and not counter and there is one word for that

Pathetic

Again there is nothing humane about killing an animal, what do you not understand about that if you eat meat?

Try again.

Stop detracting from the points, for goodness sake

Didge!
Out of order. Firstly being so rude to someone who is expressing an opinion and backing it up it is bad form.
Please read your postsback and see how awful you have been. You are better than that Didge.
Secondly Harvesmom has been a friend of mine for many years and is in no way racist.

Racist is being slung about so much on here it will become meaningless.

by harvesmom Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:34 am

Didge wrote:Anyway no offense harvesmon, am going to bed, just disappointed.

a) that you think I am calling people racist here, when racism has no play on this, but xenophobic prejudice.

b) That you still do not grasp both methods have flaws, where the animals can still even be conscious after stunning, after they have been hurt with electrocution.

c) this shows there is more to this argument, because humanitarian grounds from meat eaters on methods.

Night and all the best

Didge, I am failing to see a real difference between 'xenophobic prejudice' and racism.

a)
xenophobia

/zɛnəˈfəʊbɪə/

noun

noun: xenophobia

1.
intense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries.

"racism and xenophobia are steadily growing in Europe"

synonyms: racism, racialism, racial hatred, ethnocentrism, ethnocentricity;

nationalism, jingoism, isolationism;

prejudice, intolerance, bigotry, bias;

b) I have explained my views on this. Pre stunning is not perfect, but studies show that errors are made on less than 0.0004 % of animals, yes this is unacceptable but when there are 960 million animals killed each year mistakes are going to be made.

c) I don't even understand that, sorry.

I am disappointed in you too, I always thought you could debate without having to resort to name calling, its a bit childish to be honest and dilutes your point of view considerably. You can go into meltdown as much as you like, its not going to change my point of view that slitting a conscious animals throat is barbaric. And this view is based solely on an animal welfare issue, nothing else.

by harvesmom Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:45 am

Thanks Edds and Nems x I think Didge was about to self combust last night, it would be nice to be allowed an opinion without constantly being accused of having an ulterior motive.

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:49 am

I personally think harvesmom may have RACIST TENDENCIES!

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:53 am

harvesmom wrote:
Didge wrote:Anyway no offense harvesmon, am going to bed, just disappointed.

a) that you think I am calling people racist here, when racism has no play on this, but xenophobic prejudice.

b) That you still do not grasp both methods have flaws, where the animals can still even be conscious after stunning, after they have been hurt with electrocution.

c) this shows there is more to this argument, because humanitarian grounds from meat eaters on methods.

Night and all the best

Didge, I am failing to see a real difference between 'xenophobic prejudice' and racism.

a)
xenophobia

/zɛnəˈfəʊbɪə/

noun

noun: xenophobia

1.
intense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries.

"racism and xenophobia are steadily growing in Europe"

synonyms: racism, racialism, racial hatred, ethnocentrism, ethnocentricity;

nationalism, jingoism, isolationism;

prejudice, intolerance, bigotry, bias;

b) I have explained my views on this. Pre stunning is not perfect, but studies show that errors are made on less than 0.0004 % of animals, yes this is unacceptable but when there are 960 million animals killed each year mistakes are going to be made.

c) I don't even understand that, sorry.

I am disappointed in you too, I always thought you could debate without having to resort to name calling, its a bit childish to be honest and dilutes your point of view considerably. You can go into meltdown as much as you like, its not going to change my point of view that slitting a conscious animals throat is barbaric. And this view is based solely on an animal welfare issue, nothing else.

Then I guess you are not that clued up, xenophobia is different from racism and again racism is a superiority over a race, xenophobia as stated is a fear, please understand the difference and on this count it is xenophobia because it is irrationally based fears off extremists used to then denote fear onto all Muslims based upon guilt by association. That is what the Nazi's used as similar arguments as well as racist arguments against the Jews. So now do you understand it is not the racist view points that are similar but many of the prejudice view points, so please stop talking babble claiming people are accusing others of racism.

Dear me so you agree pre-stunning is not perfect, but are happy to go with one barbaric method killing animals, but not another barbaric method to killing animals, thus showing your argument is again hypocritical babble, as again if your view is for the humane treatment of animals it would not be to kill the animal in the first place. Thus if you accept that animals have rights, raising and killing animals for food is morally wrong.
An animal raised for food is being used by others rather than being respected for itself. In philosopher's terms it is being treated as a means to human ends and not as an end in itself. This is a clear violation of the animal's rights. No matter how humanely an animal is treated in the process, raising and killing it for food remains morally wrong., thus negating an humane claims to treating them in the process of killing them, which clearly shows again how such arguments against Halal are nothing more than a smokescreen to the true intention of who is doing the killing of the animals and not the method. So please spare me your pretentious bullshit, I know when people talk bullshit as you are doing now and it is no meltdown just to easily showing up your poor xenophobic view points

by harvesmom Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:55 am

BigAndy9 wrote:I personally think harvesmom may have RACIST TENDENCIES!

I'm developing murderous tendencies, does that count?

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:57 am

Nems wrote:
Didge wrote:

Fuck me what an idiot, again I never called you or anyone a Nazi, seriously how thick are you?

I said and I will say this slowly for you as you seem to being an utter idiot:

You are using Similar arguments the Nazi's used against the Jews with prejudice

Stop being a muppet, I expect better of you, again all you are doing is avoiding every point I have made, repeat yourself and not counter and there is one word for that

Pathetic

Again there is nothing humane about killing an animal, what do you not understand about that if you eat meat?

Try again.

Stop detracting from the points, for goodness sake

Didge!
Out of order. Firstly being so rude to someone who is expressing an opinion and backing it up it is bad form.
Please read your postsback and see how awful you have been. You are better than that Didge.
Secondly Harvesmom has been a friend of mine for many years and is in no way racist.

Racist is being slung about so much on here it will become meaningless.

For fuck sake you wally I never once called her a racist, so again stop making up Bullshit Eddie, not once have I called her racist but prejudice and xenophobic and I could care less if she is a friend, if she makes idiotic statements then I will treat them with the discontent they deserve, I suggest you get used to that, I take far worse insults than being called an idiot and it does not affect me, so please also Eddie spare me the bullshit and do not accuse me of calliing her a racist when I never did, that is pathetic to claim

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:58 am

I suppose didge, that what we should be saying is that killing animals isn't perfect, but it is seen as necessary - it's a great source of food for us.

The best and most humane way to Westerners has been decided upon as stunning.

In our countries, stunning should be the way animals are killed.

If people on here had ulterior motives we'd be trying to force the Middle East to change their ways - we're not discussing that are we? They, however, have come here and expect to force their ways upon us.

Who is racist?

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:58 am

harvesmom wrote:
BigAndy9 wrote:I personally think harvesmom may have RACIST TENDENCIES!

I'm developing murderous tendencies, does that count?

I rest my case, prejudice breeds hate, and hate breeds violence.

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 12:01 pm

harvesmom wrote:
BigAndy9 wrote:I personally think harvesmom may have RACIST TENDENCIES!

I'm developing murderous tendencies, does that count?

Murder to those who shout RACIST all the time is perfectly ok - murderers and other criminals should be helped back in to society and should receive preferential treatment over RACISTS at all times.

To summarise:

Only RACISTS count on this forum.

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 12:03 pm

BigAndy9 wrote:I suppose didge, that what we should be saying is that killing animals isn't perfect, but it is seen as necessary - it's a great source of food for us.

The best and most humane way to Westerners has been decided upon as stunning.

In our countries, stunning should be the way animals are killed.

If people on here had ulterior motives we'd be trying to force the Middle East to change their ways - we're not discussing that are we? They, however, have come here and expect to force their ways upon us.

Who is racist?

No idea who is racist, both Eddie and Harvesmum can no doubt point out how saying using similar arguments to the Nazi's is calling someone a racist? People hear the word Nazi and stupidly and idiotically assume you are calling them racist, showing how they are not in control of their emotions and see red.

Again stunning and non-stunning are both barbaric if your view is for the humane treatment of the animal, something which shows how hypocritical the arguments against Halal are

by harvesmom Fri Apr 18, 2014 12:12 pm

Didge wrote:
harvesmom wrote:

Didge, I am failing to see a real difference between 'xenophobic prejudice' and racism.

a)
xenophobia

/zɛnəˈfəʊbɪə/

noun

noun: xenophobia

1.
intense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries.

"racism and xenophobia are steadily growing in Europe"

synonyms: racism, racialism, racial hatred, ethnocentrism, ethnocentricity;

nationalism, jingoism, isolationism;

prejudice, intolerance, bigotry, bias;

b) I have explained my views on this. Pre stunning is not perfect, but studies show that errors are made on less than 0.0004 % of animals, yes this is unacceptable but when there are 960 million animals killed each year mistakes are going to be made.

c) I don't even understand that, sorry.

I am disappointed in you too, I always thought you could debate without having to resort to name calling, its a bit childish to be honest and dilutes your point of view considerably. You can go into meltdown as much as you like, its not going to change my point of view that slitting a conscious animals throat is barbaric. And this view is based solely on an animal welfare issue, nothing else.

Then I guess you are not that clued up, xenophobia is different from racism and again racism is a superiority over a race, xenophobia as stated is a fear, please understand the difference and on this count it is xenophobia because it is irrationally based fears off extremists used to then denote fear onto all Muslims based upon guilt by association. That is what the Nazi's used as similar arguments as well as racist arguments against the Jews. So now do you understand it is not the racist view points that are similar but many of the prejudice view points, so please stop talking babble claiming people are accusing others of racism.

Dear me so you agree pre-stunning is not perfect, but are happy to go with one barbaric method killing animals, but not another barbaric method to killing animals, thus showing your argument is again hypocritical babble, as again if your view is for the humane treatment of animals it would not be to kill the animal in the first place. Thus if you accept that animals have rights, raising and killing animals for food is morally wrong.
An animal raised for food is being used by others rather than being respected for itself. In philosopher's terms it is being treated as a means to human ends and not as an end in itself. This is a clear violation of the animal's rights. No matter how humanely an animal is treated in the process, raising and killing it for food remains morally wrong., thus negating an humane claims to treating them in the process of killing them, which clearly shows again how such arguments against Halal are nothing more than a smokescreen to the true intention of who is doing the killing of the animals and not the method. So please spare me your pretentious bullshit, I know when people talk bullshit as you are doing now and it is no meltdown just to easily showing up your poor xenophobic view points

Seriously, WTF are you on? Nazis? Jews? Muslims? so now I'm Xenophobic? I give up, you are either not reading my posts or you are just hell bent on name calling. I do not have an irrational fear of anything, except spiders. I have stated several times, my point of view has NOTHING, do you hear that, NOTHING to do with Muslims. I am not afraid of Muslims, or Jews, or Germans for that matter, I will fight for a sunbed along with the best of them. I don't care who eats what, I am not right wing, left wing or chicken wing.

I simply want the meat that I, and others eat to be killed in as humane way as possible, I'm sorry you cant grasp that simple statement but I have spent enough of my life on you now, have a great one and maybe someone else will be along shortly for you to take your temper out on.

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 12:19 pm

harvesmom wrote:
Didge wrote:

Then I guess you are not that clued up, xenophobia is different from racism and again racism is a superiority over a race, xenophobia as stated is a fear, please understand the difference and on this count it is xenophobia because it is irrationally based fears off extremists used to then denote fear onto all Muslims based upon guilt by association. That is what the Nazi's used as similar arguments as well as racist arguments against the Jews. So now do you understand it is not the racist view points that are similar but many of the prejudice view points, so please stop talking babble claiming people are accusing others of racism.

Dear me so you agree pre-stunning is not perfect, but are happy to go with one barbaric method killing animals, but not another barbaric method to killing animals, thus showing your argument is again hypocritical babble, as again if your view is for the humane treatment of animals it would not be to kill the animal in the first place. Thus if you accept that animals have rights, raising and killing animals for food is morally wrong.
An animal raised for food is being used by others rather than being respected for itself. In philosopher's terms it is being treated as a means to human ends and not as an end in itself. This is a clear violation of the animal's rights. No matter how humanely an animal is treated in the process, raising and killing it for food remains morally wrong., thus negating an humane claims to treating them in the process of killing them, which clearly shows again how such arguments against Halal are nothing more than a smokescreen to the true intention of who is doing the killing of the animals and not the method. So please spare me your pretentious bullshit, I know when people talk bullshit as you are doing now and it is no meltdown just to easily showing up your poor xenophobic view points

Seriously, WTF are you on? Nazis? Jews? Muslims? so now I'm Xenophobic? I give up, you are either not reading my posts or you are just hell bent on name calling. I do not have an irrational fear of anything, except spiders. I have stated several times, my point of view has NOTHING, do you hear that, NOTHING to do with Muslims. I am not afraid of Muslims, or Jews, or Germans for that matter, I will fight for a sunbed along with the best of them. I don't care who eats what, I am not right wing, left wing or chicken wing.

I simply want the meat that I, and others eat to be killed in as humane way as possible, I'm sorry you cant grasp that simple statement but I have spent enough of my life on you now, have a great one and maybe someone else will be along shortly for you to take your temper out on.

Copout reply, yes you are xenophobic, your argument here is hypocritical as easily explained because you eat meat and are how to go with one barbaric method to kill animals, not giving a thought or view on the animals rights in the first place, something you fail to comprehend or even understand. Thus it then is not about the method but about who is committing the method and in this case it is Muslims and Jews.
What you also fail to understand is the animal is killed the exact same way, both having their throats slit, except one method zaps electricity through their brains, and you claim to call that humane, absurd.

Again people cannot even see when they use poor arguments which is clearly the case with yourself.

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 12:28 pm

Another point for you Harvesmum, do you wear cosmetics, perfumes etc, because believe me of the many ingredients that go into making these products many use animal testing?

The final product is not tested, but as stated many of the ingredients that are used to make such products are, I was a Demand planner for Givaudan and know so much about this, showing again how people wear many products that are created from animal testing.

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:09 pm

Didge wrote:Another point for you Harvesmum, do you wear cosmetics, perfumes etc, because believe me of the many ingredients that go into making these products many use animal testing?

The final product is not tested, but as stated many of the ingredients that are used to make such products are, I was a Demand planner for Givaudan and know so much about this, showing again how people wear many products that are created from animal testing.

Didge, we can't do everything perfectly, but we can try our best.

As far as killing animals is concerned, we are told that stunning is best for the animals.

Now, in our country, in our restaurants most of us (if not all) would prefer that the animals were killed our way.

Is that too much to ask?

Is it unreasonable? Is it xenophobic? Is it RACIST?

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:10 pm

Oh - one for Benji:

Is this really a WAR?

lol

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:16 pm

harvesmom wrote:Thanks Edds and Nems x I think Didge was about to self combust last night, it would be nice to be allowed an opinion without constantly being accused of having an ulterior motive.

Would be Harves but those days are gone it seem x

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:17 pm

BigAndy9 wrote:
Didge wrote:Another point for you Harvesmum, do you wear cosmetics, perfumes etc, because believe me of the many ingredients that go into making these products many use animal testing?

The final product is not tested, but as stated many of the ingredients that are used to make such products are, I was a Demand planner for Givaudan and know so much about this, showing again how people wear many products that are created from animal testing.

Didge, we can't do everything perfectly, but we can try our best.

As far as killing animals is concerned, we are told that stunning is best for the animals.

Now, in our country, in our restaurants most of us (if not all) would prefer that the animals were killed our way.

Is that too much to ask?

Is it unreasonable? Is it xenophobic? Is it RACIST?

Who said about doing anything perfect, people daily have no care about the products they wear and the fact they eat meat, showing no ethics for animals in the first place, which is the point you seem to fail to understand, thus again arguments on Halal, though kosher never seems to come up are nothing more than hypocritical. If it is hypocritical, then the motive behind being against Halal has nothing to do with any humane treatment to animals, but of the people who carry out the method, something which is clearly lost on people, hence it is a smokescreen, to use as a tool to castigate Muslims.

If then the view point as proven is hypocritical, because again the method of stunning is not humane, far from it then the argument ceases to be about the method, but about Muslim , how difficult is that to understand ? The animal is killed vastly with stunning anyway with Halal that is brought to this country, showing yet again your argument thus is down to Muslims, and not the method when many now actually use stunning. So again please spare me the babble, this is just a lame excuse to try to castigate Muslims.

So yes it is very much xenophobic, because there is no merit to the argument against halal, unless you are against all methods of killing animals[/quote]

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:19 pm

Didge wrote:
Nems wrote:

Didge!
Out of order. Firstly being so rude to someone who is expressing an opinion and backing it up it is bad form.
Please read your postsback and see how awful you have been. You are better than that Didge.
Secondly Harvesmom has been a friend of mine for many years and is in no way racist.

Racist is being slung about so much on here it will become meaningless.

For fuck sake you wally I never once called her a racist, so again stop making up Bullshit Eddie, not once have I called her racist but prejudice and xenophobic and I could care less if she is a friend, if she makes idiotic statements then I will treat them with the discontent they deserve, I suggest you get used to that, I take far worse insults than being called an idiot and it does not affect me, so please also Eddie spare me the bullshit and do not accuse me of calliing her a racist when I never did, that is pathetic to claim

er Im not eddie, but I will give her the message! lol!

For me though you can explain why xenophobic is not racist?

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:20 pm

Nems wrote:
harvesmom wrote:Thanks Edds and Nems x I think Didge was about to self combust last night, it would be nice to be allowed an opinion without constantly being accused of having an ulterior motive.

Would be Harves but those days are gone it seem x

Her argument is idiotic Nems, end of story and very hypocritical as yet nobody has proven my point wrong, as seen, hence it was a very idiotic view which does not mean she is idiotic herself.
This is a grown ups forum, and if people post bull, then they need to expect to take the flak for doing so, I have nothing against her, but it is very easy to expose poor arguments

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:23 pm

Nems wrote:
Didge wrote:

For fuck sake you wally I never once called her a racist, so again stop making up Bullshit Eddie, not once have I called her racist but prejudice and xenophobic and I could care less if she is a friend, if she makes idiotic statements then I will treat them with the discontent they deserve, I suggest you get used to that, I take far worse insults than being called an idiot and it does not affect me, so please also Eddie spare me the bullshit and do not accuse me of calliing her a racist when I never did, that is pathetic to claim

er Im not eddie, but I will give her the message!

For me though you can explain why xenophobic is not racist?

lol though I was replying to her post, but my point goes the same to you, as again people are usuing similar prejudice arguments that have been used before, that does not mean I think they are a Nazi or use even the racist views of the Nazi's, but they did also use many xenophobic arguments also. This again does not mean I think that person is a Nazi also, but again how people use poor prejudice similar arguments

Racism is a view of a superiority over another race, claiming they are inferior.

the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

Different to xenophobia, but both can go together hand in hand

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:26 pm

eddie wrote:Didge you were a bit rude to harves actually and she wasn't rude to you.

She is a real animal lover and her points are based on that, and not the "Muslim" aspect of it.

I can guarantee that I know her very well and she always takes people as she finds them and doesn't have a racist bone in her body x

Sorry anyone that eats meat, morally is not an animal lover, even more so if they wear perfume and cosmetics, as many of the ingredients are tested on animals, hence that is not a claim to being an animal lover. Sorry if a argument is idiotic, then it will be shown as such and again never called her a racist, that is a poor perception on your part, or maybe you can point out where I did?

Good hunting

x

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:28 pm

Didge wrote:
Nems wrote:

Would be Harves but those days are gone it seem x

Her argument is idiotic Nems, end of story and very hypocritical as yet nobody has proven my point wrong, as seen, hence it was a very idiotic view which does not mean she is idiotic herself.
This is a grown ups forum, and if people post bull, then they need to expect to take the flak for doing so, I have nothing against her, but it is very easy to expose poor arguments

Firstly Didge you are being far from grown up. If you believe her arguements a poor then discredit them if you can

Personally speaking if the president of the BVA says religious slaughter methods cause suffering and all animals should be stunned before slaughter then I believe him.

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:34 pm

Nems wrote:
Didge wrote:

Her argument is idiotic Nems, end of story and very hypocritical as yet nobody has proven my point wrong, as seen, hence it was a very idiotic view which does not mean she is idiotic herself.
This is a grown ups forum, and if people post bull, then they need to expect to take the flak for doing so, I have nothing against her, but it is very easy to expose poor arguments

Firstly Didge you are being far from grown up. If you believe her arguements a poor then discredit them if you can

Personally speaking if the president of the BVA says religious slaughter methods cause suffering and all animals should be stunned before slaughter then I believe him.

Please spare me about being grown up when you are fighting daily with certain posters, that again is hypocritical, I am and have discredited her argument, as yet nobody has refuted my points and again I show there is no concern for the animals in the first place when they eat meat, where cosmetics etc.

So now your evidence is what a human thinks and not what the animal feels itself, again an absurd view point

by harvesmom Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:39 pm

Didge wrote:
Nems wrote:

Would be Harves but those days are gone it seem x

Her argument is idiotic Nems, end of story and very hypocritical as yet nobody has proven my point wrong, as seen, hence it was a very idiotic view which does not mean she is idiotic herself.
This is a grown ups forum, and if people post bull, then they need to expect to take the flak for doing so, I have nothing against her, but it is very easy to expose poor arguments

I can happily take flak from you all day Didge, water, ducks back, albeit it gets a bit repetitive and boring. I don't have an irrational fear of you so its ok.

The UK Government, the RSPCA, the BVA have decided that the most humane way to kill an animal is to stun it first. I agree with them. The religious way of slaughtering them actually sits outside of the UK legislation of the Welfare of animals (slaughter or killing) 1995. This requires all animals to be stunned before slaughter.

Now unless you are medically qualified in a veterinary field, I really doubt that you know more than all these people. So which one of us has the idiotic argument again?

by harvesmom Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:41 pm

Didge wrote:
Nems wrote:

Firstly Didge you are being far from grown up. If you believe her arguements a poor then discredit them if you can

Personally speaking if the president of the BVA says religious slaughter methods cause suffering and all animals should be stunned before slaughter then I believe him.

Please spare me about being grown up when you are fighting daily with certain posters, that again is hypocritical, I am and have discredited her argument, as yet nobody has refuted my points and again I show there is no concern for the animals in the first place when they eat meat, where cosmetics etc.

So now your evidence is what a human thinks and not what the animal feels itself, again an absurd view point

And that's your argument is it? we should base our opinions on what the animal thinks. How THE CHUFF do you know what an animal feels like????

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:43 pm

harvesmom wrote:
Didge wrote:

Her argument is idiotic Nems, end of story and very hypocritical as yet nobody has proven my point wrong, as seen, hence it was a very idiotic view which does not mean she is idiotic herself.
This is a grown ups forum, and if people post bull, then they need to expect to take the flak for doing so, I have nothing against her, but it is very easy to expose poor arguments

I can happily take flak from you all day Didge, water, ducks back, albeit it gets a bit repetitive and boring. I don't have an irrational fear of you so its ok.

The UK Government, the RSPCA, the BVA have decided that the most humane way to kill an animal is to stun it first. I agree with them. The religious way of slaughtering them actually sits outside of the UK legislation of the Welfare of animals (slaughter or killing) 1995. This requires all animals to be stunned before slaughter.

Now unless you are medically qualified in a veterinary field, I really doubt that you know more than all these people. So which one of us has the idiotic argument again?

It is your argument I am giving flak to as it is so utterly hypocritical and also the RSPCA and the BVA are also hypocritical on this view point as seen by my arguments, again that shows you cannot think for yourself but decide to just go along with some organisations, which again none can even lay claim to knowing how an actual animal feels, showing again it is an absurd view point. You do not have to be medically trained to understand a poor argument which you present now, because can you tell me how an animal feels when stunned?
No you cannot, and only medically trained people can guess also.

The point you miss so badly is your argument is not based on any logic, it is based upon hypocrisy, because you eat meat, wear no doubt cosmetics and perfume ect all of which cause harm and in the case of slaughtered animals the right to live. Hence again you fail to see why your argument is hypocritical.

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:44 pm

Didge wrote:
Nems wrote:

Firstly Didge you are being far from grown up. If you believe her arguements a poor then discredit them if you can

Personally speaking if the president of the BVA says religious slaughter methods cause suffering and all animals should be stunned before slaughter then I believe him.

Please spare me about being grown up when you are fighting daily with certain posters, that again is hypocritical, I am and have discredited her argument, as yet nobody has refuted my points and again I show there is no concern for the animals in the first place when they eat meat, where cosmetics etc.

So now your evidence is what a human thinks and not what the animal feels itself, again an absurd view point

Er you brought in the grown ups comment
You have discredited nothing
What are your points? That all animal slaughter is equally bad? That Halal is good? Stunning is not needed? The chief vet knows nothing?
I can read your posts ten times Didge and I still not know what your point is.

Good job we love ya cos you is hard work! Razz

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:45 pm

harvesmom wrote:
Didge wrote:

Please spare me about being grown up when you are fighting daily with certain posters, that again is hypocritical, I am and have discredited her argument, as yet nobody has refuted my points and again I show there is no concern for the animals in the first place when they eat meat, where cosmetics etc.

So now your evidence is what a human thinks and not what the animal feels itself, again an absurd view point

And that's your argument is it? we should base our opinions on what the animal thinks. How THE CHUFF do you know what an animal feels like????

Bingo, nobody does but you are the one claiming to know by saying one method is more humane than the other, showing nobody can know, showing it is finally starting to sink in.

Well done and bravo

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:47 pm

Didge wrote:
harvesmom wrote:

And that's your argument is it? we should base our opinions on what the animal thinks. How THE CHUFF do you know what an animal feels like????

Bingo, nobody does but you are the one claiming to know by saying one method is more humane than the other, showing nobody can know, showing it is finally starting to sink in.

Well done and bravo

Didge are you really saying we dont know if its better to stun? Really?
Ever had an operation? fancy it without an anaesthetic?

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:48 pm

Nems wrote:
Didge wrote:

Please spare me about being grown up when you are fighting daily with certain posters, that again is hypocritical, I am and have discredited her argument, as yet nobody has refuted my points and again I show there is no concern for the animals in the first place when they eat meat, where cosmetics etc.

So now your evidence is what a human thinks and not what the animal feels itself, again an absurd view point

Er you brought in the grown ups comment
You have discredited nothing
What are your points? That all animal slaughter is equally bad? That Halal is good? Stunning is not needed? The chief vet knows nothing?
I can read your posts ten times Didge and I still not know what your point is.

Good job we love ya cos you is hard work!

Again spare me the bull on being grown up Nems, when you stop fighting with others, then I will heed your words.
Seriously can you not read, I said both methods are barbaric, but accept them because I eat meat, that shows I cannot argue against the methods because I happily eat meat, otherwise I would be hypocritical, because I have negated the right for the animal to live in the first place which in itself is morally wrong.
Thus you cannot claim humane methods off the back of wearing makeup, eating meat etc, because as seen they are hypocritical

by harvesmom Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:50 pm

Didge wrote:
harvesmom wrote:

And that's your argument is it? we should base our opinions on what the animal thinks. How THE CHUFF do you know what an animal feels like????

Bingo, nobody does but you are the one claiming to know by saying one method is more humane than the other, showing nobody can know, showing it is finally starting to sink in.

Well done and bravo

OK. Tell me in one sentence what is your point?

Should we have a tour around the countryside and conduct a survey of cows in a field asking how they prefer to be slaughtered? Or are you saying that the whole country should become vegetarian? And not wear any cosmetics? Do you actually realise how ridiculous you are sounding now? See the plot? I think you lost it.

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:51 pm

Nems wrote:
Didge wrote:

Bingo, nobody does but you are the one claiming to know by saying one method is more humane than the other, showing nobody can know, showing it is finally starting to sink in.

Well done and bravo

Didge are you really saying we dont know if its better to stun? Really?
Ever had an operation? fancy it without an anaesthetic?

Sorry are you now saying we electrocute patients before an operation, by zapping this direct into their brains?

Beggars beyond belief, that is not a comparison, again you cannot know how the animal feels, you can guess, the best way to guess is to have your head yourself zapped with the same electricity amount and then let me know how you felt and if you did not feel pain?

by Tommy Monk Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:51 pm

Didge wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Dodge, if the method used for killing an animal is so unimportant, as you say, then why such an issue if stopping doing it a way only a minority actually want but is given to majority of others against their wishes/beliefs/knowledge?
Where did I say it was an issue?
You state it is an issue, to Muslims and Jews they eat meat hat way, they cannot eat it any other, so to deny them is denying them not only a equality to a barbaric practice by butchering animals to scoff our faces with, but the only reason you wish to deny them this is you wish to use some lame argument about how the animal is killed, even though it is the exact same method, its throat cut. I do not know what is more stupid or absurd, people being idiots claiming the method is inhumane, to next saying they should not be allowed to eat something that is part of their faith, whilst they themselves have no issue stuffing their face with a Royal with cheese.
So again your argument is what? You are against accommodating food, when you yourself have no issue with denying an animal its right by killing it to feed people , or you want to complain you get meat which is slaughtered Matti by the same method all animals are killed, by their throat slit?
Your argument is absurd, as is others, again it is about a poor idiotic prejudice, which with the fact this method has gone on in this country for centuries shows it is nothing but prejudice.
So how about you actually answer my questions instead of avoiding them.
Try again

In Surah 5:5 of the Qurʼan, it is written: "The food of the People of the Book [Jews and Christians] is lawful for you as your food is lawful for them."
And if the method is exactly the same as you say, then why do they demand it their way so much?
And why does everyone else have to be fed it surreptitiously, against their knowledge or wishes, and this is not seen as an attack, but when it's suggested to stop the halal way it is labelled as an attack?

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:54 pm

harvesmom wrote:
Didge wrote:

Bingo, nobody does but you are the one claiming to know by saying one method is more humane than the other, showing nobody can know, showing it is finally starting to sink in.

Well done and bravo

OK. Tell me in one sentence what is your point?

Should we have a tour around the countryside and conduct a survey of cows in a field asking how they prefer to be slaughtered? Or are you saying that the whole country should become vegetarian? And not wear any cosmetics? Do you actually realise how ridiculous you are sounding now? See the plot? I think you lost it.

1) If you eat meat, you have no moral ground to argue over the method, when they are the same method to kill them by slitting their throats.

2) You have even less moral grounds to ague over a method when you wear cosmetics and perfume, where many of the ingredients are tested on animals.

3) To claim one method is more humane than the other, without knowing the feelings of the animals is not only absurd, but a guess

4) Hence the argument is nothing but a smokescreen, using a claim to humane methods, when it is more about who does the method

Not sure how many times I have to repeat myself to show how hypocritical the arguments are

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:55 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Didge wrote:
Where did I say it was an issue?
You state it is an issue, to Muslims and Jews they eat meat hat way, they cannot eat it any other, so to deny them is denying them not only a equality to a barbaric practice by butchering animals to scoff our faces with, but the only reason you wish to deny them this is you wish to use some lame argument about how the animal is killed, even though it is the exact same method, its throat cut. I do not know what is more stupid or absurd, people being idiots claiming the method is inhumane, to next saying they should not be allowed to eat something that is part of their faith, whilst they themselves have no issue stuffing their face with a Royal with cheese.
So again your argument is what? You are against accommodating food, when you yourself have no issue with denying an animal its right by killing it to feed people , or you want to complain you get meat which is slaughtered Matti by the same method all animals are killed, by their throat slit?
Your argument is absurd, as is others, again it is about a poor idiotic prejudice, which with the fact this method has gone on in this country for centuries shows it is nothing but prejudice.
So how about you actually answer my questions instead of avoiding them.
Try again
In Surah 5:5 of the Qurʼan, it is written: "The food of the People of the Book [Jews and Christians] is lawful for you as your food is lawful for them."
And if the method is exactly the same as you say, then why do they demand it their way so much?
And why does everyone else have to be fed it surreptitiously, against their knowledge or wishes, and this is not seen as an attack, but when it's suggested to stop the halal way it is labelled as an attack?

If you eat meat, why are you concerned over religiously slaughtered meat, when it is killed the same way? Again you have no cause or argument, unless of course it is against your own religion?
Is it? If not best you invent one to have a case.

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:56 pm

Didge wrote:
Nems wrote:

Er you brought in the grown ups comment
You have discredited nothing
What are your points? That all animal slaughter is equally bad? That Halal is good? Stunning is not needed? The chief vet knows nothing?
I can read your posts ten times Didge and I still not know what your point is.

Good job we love ya cos you is hard work!

Again spare me the bull on being grown up Nems, when you stop fighting with others, then I will heed your words.
Its a long term fight, remember it started over the poor treatment of you?

Seriously can you not read, I did just say I cant made sense of your posts
I said both methods are barbaric, but accept them because I eat meat, that shows I cannot argue against the methods because I happily eat meat, otherwise I would be hypocritical, because I have negated the right for the animal to live in the first place which in itself is morally wrong.
You say animals have no rights so you are morally wrong -ok I get that
Thus you cannot claim humane methods off the back of wearing makeup, eating meat etc, because as seen they are hypocritical I dont think humane is the thing as even stunning has no guarantee, but surely it has to be preferable to do all we can to minimise suffering?

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 2:00 pm

Nems wrote:
Didge wrote:

Again spare me the bull on being grown up Nems, when you stop fighting with others, then I will heed your words.
Its a long term fight, remember it started over the poor treatment of you?

Seriously can you not read, I did just say I cant made sense of your posts
I said both methods are barbaric, but accept them because I eat meat, that shows I cannot argue against the methods because I happily eat meat, otherwise I would be hypocritical, because I have negated the right for the animal to live in the first place which in itself is morally wrong.
You say animals have no rights so you are morally wrong -ok I get that
Thus you cannot claim humane methods off the back of wearing makeup, eating meat etc, because as seen they are hypocritical I dont think humane is the thing as even stunning has no guarantee, but surely it has to be preferable to do all we can to minimise suffering?

It is preferable based on no sound reasoning Nems, because again it is based upon a guess, that zapping an animal through the head with electricity is humane.
Again unless someone wishes to try having this done to themselves, then I see no case for anyone to claim it is humane

by Sponsored content