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 harvesmom Fri Apr 18, 2014 2:13 pm

Didge wrote:
harvesmom wrote:

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

1) just because people eat meat does not mean they are hypocritical because they prefer to know the animal has been killed as humanely as possible. That is as ridiculous as saying that because I eat vegetables its hypocritical to say I would only buy organically farmed vegetables.

2) I personally would never KNOWINGLY buy cosmetics from a company who test on animals. I realise this is a huge grey area, which is why I added KNOWINGLY.

3) The BVA /RSPCA/ Government can make a far more educated guess than you can.

4) You are wrong.

You have completely put me off my bacon sandwich I just cooked now, I have had to feed it to the dog. I hope you are happy with yourself.

by Tommy Monk Fri Apr 18, 2014 2:14 pm

Double post - deleted

by Tommy Monk Fri Apr 18, 2014 2:17 pm

Didge wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:
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.

THere is a big difference.
If there isn't, then why do moslims want it their way so much?
Why is it deemed an attack when it is suggested non halal be "symbolically and physically" given to moslims but not when halal is surreptitiously given to others?
The moslims own guide book says clearly that they can eat other food than halal so what's the problem?
.

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 2:32 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Didge wrote:
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.
THere is a big difference.
If there isn't, then why do moslims want it their way so much?
Why is it deemed an attack when it is suggested non halal be "symbolically and physically" given to moslims but not when halal is surreptitiously given to others?
The moslims own guide book says clearly that they can eat other food than halal so what's the problem?
.

Muslims and Jews have a religious practice how the animal is slaughtered, as you well know, tad of an absurd question to ask, you though do not have a religious requirement not to eat Halal or Kosher, your only view against doing so is a matter of opinion based on a hypocritical view on the method of slaughter, when both methods end up the same, being dinner on your plate.

Muslims are not wanting it their way, they only want to eat their method of slaughtering meat as Jews so, that is nothing wrong in that, and it is down to many companies what meat they buy to sell, so take issue with them, and not the method itself, so I suggest if you want to have a hypocritical view where you do not want to eat meat killed the exact same way as stunned slaughter, then you also have options do you not.

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 2:33 pm

I love how people are so incensed over the word Muslim having a capital M, they will go to any method to prove they are childish, ha ha

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 2:37 pm

harvesmom wrote:
Didge wrote:

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

1) just because people eat meat does not mean they are hypocritical because they prefer to know the animal has been killed as humanely as possible. That is as ridiculous as saying that because I eat vegetables its hypocritical to say I would only buy organically farmed vegetables.
Yes it does I am afraid, because you deny the animal the choice to live, so it is not ridiculous, it shows you do not understand what is called the moral high ground of which I have. To deny an animal the right to life is inhumane in itself, to then quibble over how it is killed is thus very hypocritical and also lame

2) I personally would never KNOWINGLY buy cosmetics from a company who test on animals. I realise this is a huge grey area, which is why I added KNOWINGLY.
Sadly you do, as many products have ingredients that are tested on animals, thus you do not even care to know if they are or not, showing again another hypocritical view point on caring for animals, to the extent you do not even know, showing again the view to halal is a smokescreen

3) The BVA /RSPCA/ Government can make a far more educated guess than you can.
Really based on what? Do they again know how the animal feels or if the animal wishes to be slaughtered in the first place to serve you steak?

4) You are wrong.
Wow what an answer, epic fail

You have completely put me off my bacon sandwich I just cooked now, I have had to feed it to the dog. I hope you are happy with yourself.

Good then my point is hitting home, if you are against eating meat then you would be against all methods of slaughter and not make absurd views on just the methods

by Tommy Monk Fri Apr 18, 2014 2:43 pm

Still not answering the question is see.
Halal food has been "symbolically and physically" given to us for years, surreptitiously, against our knowledge or permission, and this has not been labelled as an attack, so why is it that when it is suggested that the non halal food is given to muslems, this is labelled as an attack?
Although in their own guide book it states quite clearly that they can eat the food of the Christian?

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 2:46 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Still not answering the question is see.
Halal food has been "symbolically and physically" given to us for years, surreptitiously, against our knowledge or permission, and this has not been labelled as an attack, so why is it that when it is suggested that the non halal food is given to muslems, this is labelled as an attack?
Although in their own guide book it states quite clearly that they can eat the food of the Christian?

Again blame the companies that buy the food and sell it to you, the point you utterly miss.
To claim it should labelled is both absurd when you eat meat in the first place because all methods of slaughter are inhumane, showing you are using is as a lame excuse to castigate Muslims which is evident from your childish spelling of Muslims and how you keep throwing your dummy out over this.
Many people do not give a second thought when getting stuck into a burger, so again I suggest you stop eating meat if it bothers you that much, because both methods are inhumane.

You have no argument, just the usual poor Matti one

by harvesmom Fri Apr 18, 2014 2:49 pm

Didge wrote:
harvesmom wrote:

1) just because people eat meat does not mean they are hypocritical because they prefer to know the animal has been killed as humanely as possible. That is as ridiculous as saying that because I eat vegetables its hypocritical to say I would only buy organically farmed vegetables.
Yes it does I am afraid, because you deny the animal the choice to live, so it is not ridiculous, it shows you do not understand what is called the moral high ground of which I have. To deny an animal the right to life is inhumane in itself, to then quibble over how it is killed is thus very hypocritical and also lame

2) I personally would never KNOWINGLY buy cosmetics from a company who test on animals. I realise this is a huge grey area, which is why I added KNOWINGLY.
Sadly you do, as many products have ingredients that are tested on animals, thus you do not even care to know if they are or not, showing again another hypocritical view point on caring for animals, to the extent you do not even know, showing again the view to halal is a smokescreen

3) The BVA /RSPCA/ Government can make a far more educated guess than you can.
Really based on what? Do they again know how the animal feels or if the animal wishes to be slaughtered in the first place to serve you steak?

4) You are wrong.
Wow what an answer, epic fail

You have completely put me off my bacon sandwich I just cooked now, I have had to feed it to the dog. I hope you are happy with yourself.

Good then my point is hitting home, if you are against eating meat then you would be against all methods of slaughter and not make absurd views on just the methods

are you really so thick you cant tell when someone is taking the pee lol!

All I can do with you now is laugh at you, you and your moral high ground bring a whole new meaning to the word ridiculous. Have a good day Didge, I'm off to throw a few humanely killed steaks on the BBQ Wink

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 2:52 pm

harvesmom wrote:
Didge wrote:

Good then my point is hitting home, if you are against eating meat then you would be against all methods of slaughter and not make absurd views on just the methods

are you really so thick you cant tell when someone is taking the pee All I can do with you now is laugh at you, you and your moral high ground bring a whole new meaning to the word ridiculous. Have a good day Didge, I'm off to throw a few humanely killed steaks on the BBQ

Yes thanks for another copout reply, bye then and let me know when you have an intelligent response.

Enjoy your barbarically killed steaks, be even funnier if they are halal

lol!

by Tommy Monk Fri Apr 18, 2014 2:53 pm

Read the OP.
It is claimed that "symbolically and physically" giving non halal to muslems is somehow an "attack", so why are the years of halal being "symbolically and physically" given to us for years not seen as an attack?
If the slaughter methods are exactly the same as you Blah then why is it such a problem for muslems to have non halal, when it even says in their guide book that they can eat food of the people of the book (Christians and Jews)?

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 2:54 pm

So much for Harvesmum being polite, guess my justification about her argument being idiotic was 100% correct

Busted, she has no cause to claim now when she keeps constantly retaliating ha ha ha ha ha ha

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 2:55 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Read the OP.
It is claimed that "symbolically and physically" giving non halal to muslems is somehow an "attack", so why are the years of halal being "symbolically and physically" given to us for years not seen as an attack?
If the slaughter methods are exactly the same as you Blah then why is it such a problem for muslems to have non halal, when it even says in their guide book that they can eat food of the people of the book (Christians and Jews)?

Read again

Again blame the companies that buy the food and sell it to you, the point you utterly miss.
To claim it should labelled is both absurd when you eat meat in the first place because all methods of slaughter are inhumane, showing you are using is as a lame excuse to castigate Muslims which is evident from your childish spelling of Muslims and how you keep throwing your dummy out over this.
Many people do not give a second thought when getting stuck into a burger, so again I suggest you stop eating meat if it bothers you that much, because both methods are inhumane.

You have no argument, just the usual poor Matti one

by Tommy Monk Fri Apr 18, 2014 3:10 pm

Again not answering the questions.

I was not saying halal should be labelled, although I believe it should, read again.

.

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 3:16 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Again not answering the questions.

I was not saying halal should be labelled, although I believe it should, read again.

.

It seems you need to read again, Muslims can eat non-halal, if they have no other choice to and thus they have no choice, but as stated companies buy halal meat and it is available, thus your issue then is with the companies that buy halal meat is it not, because the Halal process is carried out all over the world, so it is still imported to the UK.

You have ignored countless questions, so I find it funny when I always answer all yours and you avoid 90% of mine.

Again your arguments are now onto Muslims again, showing how it is not halal at all but being that we accommodate reasonable religious requests

by Tommy Monk Fri Apr 18, 2014 4:40 pm

Still answering a question I didn't ask....

It was said earlier that it was an attack to "symbolically and physically" give non halal food to Muslims so why is it not an attack on us to be surreptitiously given halal?

Also it quite clearly say, in the muslems guide book that the food of the people of the book is ok for them?

We are expected to have it their way And put up with it etc, but if suggested that it will be the other way round there is a big fuss!

by nicko Fri Apr 18, 2014 4:55 pm

Muslims are allowed to eat pork only if no other food is available.

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 5:36 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Still answering a question I didn't ask....

It was said earlier that it was an attack to "symbolically and physically" give non halal food to Muslims so why is it not an attack on us to be surreptitiously given halal?

Also it quite clearly say, in the muslems guide book that the food of the people of the book is ok for them?

We are expected to have it their way And put up with it etc, but if suggested that it will be the other way round there is a big fuss!

You want to know why it is not an attack to you to be surreptitiously given halal, when you already eat meat, thus negating any factor that you have no issue with animals being slaughtered to feed your belly, thus showing you have no case to argue, when Muslims should eat Halal, but the only exception if they are denied this they can forego this?

How absurd, you have no issue over animals being killed, thus it matters little if you have Halal or not, a Muslim though is meant to have halal, which clearly you do not understand the difference.

Its not about being expected, when you have no issue eating meat, they though require a religious requirement, which does not mean denying them means they should not have access to it. You have no reason not to eat halal, based on moral arguments over animals being killed and yet you still prattle on with nonsense,

by eddie Fri Apr 18, 2014 6:50 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

Erm, didge, I did make a post to you about harves if you care to read back but not this one that you've quoted; that was nems.
We did both say similar things.

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 7:02 pm

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.

Don't worry, I think Didge has pre-saved paragraphs for using to abuse anyone who doesn't agree with him. They get more meaningless over time...

by eddie Fri Apr 18, 2014 7:05 pm

Tesstacious 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.

Don't worry, I think Didge has pre-saved paragraphs for using to abuse anyone who doesn't agree with him. They get more meaningless over time...

I like didge but he can become quite hard work and rude sometimes.
I've debated with loads of people without resorting to name-calling.

by Stephenmarra Fri Apr 18, 2014 7:10 pm

eddie wrote:
Tesstacious wrote:

Don't worry, I think Didge has pre-saved paragraphs for using to abuse anyone who doesn't agree with him. They get more meaningless over time...

I like didge but he can become quite hard work and rude sometimes.
I've debated with loads of people without resorting to name-calling.

Can you PM Didge and tell him how you manage it ? For all our sakes.

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 7:11 pm

eddie wrote:
Tesstacious wrote:

Don't worry, I think Didge has pre-saved paragraphs for using to abuse anyone who doesn't agree with him. They get more meaningless over time...

I like didge but he can become quite hard work and rude sometimes.
I've debated with loads of people without resorting to name-calling.

Yes I can be rude, because I am disappointed when people use stupid arguments Eddie, and I do not moan when they are rude back to me, it comes with the territory, but the point is and the last few points prove people would rather talk about me than actually counter my points.
If I do not strike a chord with my points and if I am ever so not afraid to be a front, then my point is hitting home more than I could imagine, because all people are resorted to doing is talking about me..

You have called me names, when I have been poor to you, so you have also fallen foul of doing the same, even though it has more to do with the fact I sadly am able to push a posters buttons, a bad trait I have, I admit, but one that is born from frustration when someone in my view is not seeing sense, it actually shows I respect that person more than they believe in how I act

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 7:21 pm

eddie 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

Erm, didge, I did make a post to you about harves if you care to read back but not this one that you've quoted; that was nems.
We did both say similar things.

Yes i realised my error, hence why I made another post to you if you look back eddie

by eddie Fri Apr 18, 2014 7:24 pm

Didge wrote:
eddie wrote:

Erm, didge, I did make a post to you about harves if you care to read back but not this one that you've quoted; that was nems.
We did both say similar things.

Yes i realised my error, hence why I made another post to you if you look back eddie

Yes just seen it lol

by eddie Fri Apr 18, 2014 7:30 pm

Didge wrote:
eddie wrote:

I like didge but he can become quite hard work and rude sometimes.
I've debated with loads of people without resorting to name-calling.

Yes I can be rude, because I am disappointed when people use stupid arguments Eddie, and I do not moan when they are rude back to me, it comes with the territory, but the point is and the last few points prove people would rather talk about me than actually counter my points.
If I do not strike a chord with my points and if I am ever so not afraid to be a front, then my point is hitting home more than I could imagine, because all people are resorted to doing is talking about me..

You have called me names, when I have been poor to you, so you have also fallen foul of doing the same, even though it has more to do with the fact I sadly am able to push a posters buttons, a bad trait I have, I admit, but one that is born from frustration when someone in my view is not seeing sense, it actually shows I respect that person more than they believe in how I act

Didge, you do realise, don't you, that people are not getting irate because they think you're proving them wrong, but because you're getting rude and calling them idiots etc?

This is a debate forum. Most of people's posts are their OPINION yet somehow, you seem to think that what they're posting is bullshit and lies.

Often, when two people have opposing opinions they will never agree. Thats why most of us, say our piece a few times and then get bored and stop debating; because one knows you'll never change another's mind but it's fun trying?

And therein lies the key word didge: FUN
Debating should be fun. As soon as one poster starts with the aggression and derision, the debate loses the fun factor, and for me, personally, that's when I become bored and leave a thread.

I'm guessing most people feel the same.
I say this to you because I like you, and I want others to see that you have good and valid points and also a good heart, but IMO you spoil it by becoming too aggressive.

Xxx

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 7:40 pm

eddie wrote:
Didge wrote:

Yes I can be rude, because I am disappointed when people use stupid arguments Eddie, and I do not moan when they are rude back to me, it comes with the territory, but the point is and the last few points prove people would rather talk about me than actually counter my points.
If I do not strike a chord with my points and if I am ever so not afraid to be a front, then my point is hitting home more than I could imagine, because all people are resorted to doing is talking about me..

You have called me names, when I have been poor to you, so you have also fallen foul of doing the same, even though it has more to do with the fact I sadly am able to push a posters buttons, a bad trait I have, I admit, but one that is born from frustration when someone in my view is not seeing sense, it actually shows I respect that person more than they believe in how I act

Didge, you do realise, don't you, that people are not getting irate because they think you're proving them wrong, but because you're getting rude and calling them idiots etc?
It does not concern me, why should it when the point of view to me is more important, as I am of no significance to the point being made, because to me to stem any prejudice view is far more important than what people think of me

This is a debate forum. Most of people's posts are their OPINION yet somehow, you seem to think that what they're posting is bullshit and lies.
Yes they are opinion and yes I will utterly bash poor ones born from ulterior motives and I also have ever right to show disdain to such views that seed the sow of hate, if you do not like that then sue me

Often, when two people have opposing opinions they will never agree. Thats why most of us, say our piece a few times and then get bored and stop debating; because one knows you'll never change another's mind but it's fun trying?
Correct they will never agree but like I said I get frustrated more so when a person I see of intelligence cannot see when they use a prejudice view point, normally they would but because they are fixated on something they negate any common sense to what they are actually arguing. Again this is born out of respect that I get rude sometimes to show how disappointed I am that someone I do respect could blind to what they are saying. If that is wrong again, sorry but I am passionate about preventing hate and I will not hesitate to do everything in my power to prevent that, no matter if it means people dislike me, because at least I know my words are hitting home

And therein lies the key word didge: FUN
Debating should be fun. As soon as one poster starts with the aggression and derision, the debate loses the fun factor, and for me, personally, that's when I become bored and leave a thread.
Yes it should be fun, but please spare the pedantic when you kicked off the other night over the God squad, was that fun? No of course not. The debate never lost any view point and as seen I stopped being abusive and then I was the subject of abuse, showing how very right you are

I'm guessing most people feel the same.
I say this to you because I like you, and I want others to see that you have good and valid points and also a good heart, but IMO you spoil it by becoming too aggressive.

Xxx

I want others to have a good time, but also respect I have methods, you may not like them, but that is who I am, nothing will change my goal to deny any platform of hate, even if I am seen as a subject of hate

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 8:00 pm

I will leave you with one view point to think about Eddie.

You castigate me for being abusive and I agree you should, but you do so more out of kindness to how you care about people. Yet you moan are me if I castigate someone who is abusing others by their view points. So are you saying only people can only abuse by abusing others, if they are not of the forum?
Because that is what you are saying to me, you are happy to jump in if I abuse, but what about if a poster abuses a million people who's only association is an ethnicity, a religion etc? Now forgive me if I am wrong Eddie, but do you do this on every post that shows such a view point or only to a poster who lashes out at a poster who is also lashing out at others?

No, you accept freedom of speech about people saying anything about others, but you actually try to deny mine, because what I say about others, when both view points are the same. In my case though it is about people directly involved is where you draw the line, when it should be any abuse crosses the line.

Think about that.

xx

by harvesmom Fri Apr 18, 2014 8:27 pm

Tesstacious 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.

Don't worry, I think Didge has pre-saved paragraphs for using to abuse anyone who doesn't agree with him. They get more meaningless over time...

As long as its not just me then lol!

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 8:34 pm

Eddie and Harves, I completely get that your objection is animal suffering. But, that is exactly the reason why I think the opposite. From what happened to my daughter I know that it takes 2-3 seconds before their brain is dead and not able to register anything the kosher way. I am much more concerned about the animals that are stunned and then wake up, or the chickens that are electrocuted in a water bath, that can't be humane.

by eddie Fri Apr 18, 2014 8:44 pm

Sassy wrote:Eddie and Harves, I completely get that your objection is animal suffering. But, that is exactly the reason why I think the opposite. From what happened to my daughter I know that it takes 2-3 seconds before their brain is dead and not able to register anything the kosher way. I am much more concerned about the animals that are stunned and then wake up, or the chickens that are electrocuted in a water bath, that can't be humane.

Sass, the animal suffering thing is more harves thing than mine.
I'm sort of with didge on this tbh: I eat meat and rarely do I actually really think about how it died. I guess that's not very nice but it's the truth.

I don't like battery hens so never ever but any eggs that aren't free range and corn-fed.

by eddie Fri Apr 18, 2014 8:48 pm

Didge wrote:I will leave you with one view point to think about Eddie.

You castigate me for being abusive and I agree you should, but you do so more out of kindness to how you care about people. Yet you moan are me if I castigate someone who is abusing others by their view points. So are you saying only people can only abuse by abusing others, if they are not of the forum?
Because that is what you are saying to me, you are happy to jump in if I abuse, but what about if a poster abuses a million people who's only association is an ethnicity, a religion etc? Now forgive me if I am wrong Eddie, but do you do this on every post that shows such a view point or only to a poster who lashes out at a poster who is also lashing out at others?

No, you accept freedom of speech about people saying anything about others, but you actually try to deny mine, because what I say about others, when both view points are the same. In my case though it is about people directly involved is where you draw the line, when it should be any abuse crosses the line.

Think about that.

xx

Didge I have to concede your point on free speech. You're right. I do think people should be able to express themselves but I'll also defend someone if I think they've been treated unfairly too (I've defended you before - I'm not always against you!)

I don't agree with the mass slagging-off of Muslims, I've been saying that for years!

I do though, think that the racist card gets thrown about too often, and oftentimes it isn't needed, necessary or true.

But I do concede much of your post here. I can't advocate free speech and then tell you off, that's not right. Xx

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 8:52 pm

eddie wrote:
Sassy wrote:Eddie and Harves, I completely get that your objection is animal suffering. But, that is exactly the reason why I think the opposite. From what happened to my daughter I know that it takes 2-3 seconds before their brain is dead and not able to register anything the kosher way. I am much more concerned about the animals that are stunned and then wake up, or the chickens that are electrocuted in a water bath, that can't be humane.

Sass, the animal suffering thing is more harves thing than mine.
I'm sort of with didge on this tbh: I eat meat and rarely do I actually really think about how it died. I guess that's not very nice but it's the truth.

I don't like battery hens so never ever but any eggs that aren't free range and corn-fed.

I'm the same with eggs Edds, I would like to buy organic meat all the time, and used to buy from a farm that had it's own abattoir, but it's expensive. I try and buy from the local butchers because they source their meat and it actually works out cheaper than supermarket. It's a minefield quite honestly, once you start looking at all the different things that go on.

But I do honestly think that furore over halal in most cases, has a lot more to do with prejudice than the facts. I do think that it is very shortsighted that halal and kosher are not labelled, as it fuels the prejudice.

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 8:53 pm

eddie wrote:
Didge wrote:I will leave you with one view point to think about Eddie.

You castigate me for being abusive and I agree you should, but you do so more out of kindness to how you care about people. Yet you moan are me if I castigate someone who is abusing others by their view points. So are you saying only people can only abuse by abusing others, if they are not of the forum?
Because that is what you are saying to me, you are happy to jump in if I abuse, but what about if a poster abuses a million people who's only association is an ethnicity, a religion etc? Now forgive me if I am wrong Eddie, but do you do this on every post that shows such a view point or only to a poster who lashes out at a poster who is also lashing out at others?

No, you accept freedom of speech about people saying anything about others, but you actually try to deny mine, because what I say about others, when both view points are the same. In my case though it is about people directly involved is where you draw the line, when it should be any abuse crosses the line.

Think about that.

xx

Didge I have to concede your point on free speech. You're right. I do think people should be able to express themselves but I'll also defend someone if I think they've been treated unfairly too (I've defended you before - I'm not always against you!)

I don't agree with the mass slagging-off of Muslims, I've been saying that for years!

I do though, think that the racist card gets thrown about too often, and oftentimes it isn't needed, necessary or true.

But I do concede much of your post here. I can't advocate free speech and then tell you off, that's not right. Xx

Amen to that, and that is why I respect you more than many, because you listen, you do not get clouded with emotive views, you sit back and think and what has been said and that is why I adore you and respect you like I do me Lady, hence why I hate when I am an idiot with you.

Yes the racist card gets thrown around too much, but again I never used it here on Harvesmum, who like as i stated I have respect for and hence why I was frustrated you jumped in claiming racism off me, as she did from the start, when I never claimed that, sorry, it got my back up, because I never once said that last night.

Sorry

xx

by eddie Fri Apr 18, 2014 8:56 pm

Didge wrote:
eddie wrote:

Didge I have to concede your point on free speech. You're right. I do think people should be able to express themselves but I'll also defend someone if I think they've been treated unfairly too (I've defended you before - I'm not always against you!)

I don't agree with the mass slagging-off of Muslims, I've been saying that for years!

I do though, think that the racist card gets thrown about too often, and oftentimes it isn't needed, necessary or true.

But I do concede much of your post here. I can't advocate free speech and then tell you off, that's not right. Xx

Amen to that, and that is why I respect you more than many, because you listen, you do not get clouded with emotive views, you sit back and think and what has been said and that is why I adore you and respect you like I do me Lady, hence why I hate when I am an idiot with you.

Yes the racist card gets thrown around too much, but again I never used it here on Harvesmum, who like as i stated I have respect for and hence why I was frustrated you jumped in claiming racism off me, as she did from the start, when I never claimed that, sorry, it got my back up, because I never once said that last night.

Sorry

xx

Fair enough, no harm done didgie xx
She is a lovely girl is harves. I might ask her to marry me cheers

by eddie Fri Apr 18, 2014 8:59 pm

Sassy wrote:
eddie wrote:

Sass, the animal suffering thing is more harves thing than mine.
I'm sort of with didge on this tbh: I eat meat and rarely do I actually really think about how it died. I guess that's not very nice but it's the truth.

I don't like battery hens so never ever but any eggs that aren't free range and corn-fed.

I'm the same with eggs Edds, I would like to buy organic meat all the time, and used to buy from a farm that had it's own abattoir, but it's expensive. I try and buy from the local butchers because they source their meat and it actually works out cheaper than supermarket. It's a minefield quite honestly, once you start looking at all the different things that go on.

But I do honestly think that furore over halal in most cases, has a lot more to do with prejudice than the facts. I do think that it is very shortsighted that halal and kosher are not labelled, as it fuels the prejudice.

So very few butchers round here sass! I prefer butchers but then I confess, I get lazy and shop online at sainsburys. Not a good excuse really.

I think if halal and kosher were labelled, it would calm many people down.
I don't think it is about prejudice with some people, probably some do use it as a beating stick, but certainly not me and I know not harves, which was why I jumped on didge's head over it bounce

by Irn Bru Fri Apr 18, 2014 9:00 pm

I eat meat poultry and eggs etc. and I had never really thought about how they die until I read about it mostly on here and in the clips that have been shown and it's really quite distressing to see it happening.

Somehow I just get the feeling that these animals that are about to be slaughtered somehow know they are about to die. They've been taken to a place that they have never been before that probably has the stench of death about it and I just think that they sense what their fate is about to be.
Maybe I'm wrong - I don't know.

by eddie Fri Apr 18, 2014 9:04 pm

Irn Bru wrote:I eat meat poultry and eggs etc. and I had never really thought about how they die until I read about it mostly on here and in the clips that have been shown and it's really quite distressing to see it happening.

Somehow I just get the feeling that these animals that are about to be slaughtered somehow know they are about to die. They've been taken to a place that they have never been before that probably has the stench of death about it and I just think that they sense what their fate is about to be.
Maybe I'm wrong - I don't know.

oh that makes me feel like crap.

I took my little Jasmine to a zoo/farm today, and she adores animals. She spent ages stroking the little lambs and I felt awful about the fact I eat it - not often, I might add as I'm not a massive meat-eater, but enough.

And I love leather; bags, shoes, belts.

I feel quite ashamed of myself actually Sad

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 9:10 pm

eddie wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:I eat meat poultry and eggs etc. and I had never really thought about how they die until I read about it mostly on here and in the clips that have been shown and it's really quite distressing to see it happening.

Somehow I just get the feeling that these animals that are about to be slaughtered somehow know they are about to die. They've been taken to a place that they have never been before that probably has the stench of death about it and I just think that they sense what their fate is about to be.
Maybe I'm wrong - I don't know.

oh that makes me feel like crap.

I took my little Jasmine to a zoo/farm today, and she adores animals. She spent ages stroking the little lambs and I felt awful about the fact I eat it - not often, I might add as I'm not a massive meat-eater, but enough.

And I love leather; bags, shoes, belts.

I feel quite ashamed of myself actually

Not being horrible, but I am glad you see that view Eddie, because it shows, when we really think about animals, we are appalled at what we use them for, hence why I make the view about people making a beeline all the time on halal. This to me arguments on Halal, though some have been genuine once have now been used for other purposes.

by eddie Fri Apr 18, 2014 9:13 pm

Didge wrote:
eddie wrote:

oh that makes me feel like crap.

I took my little Jasmine to a zoo/farm today, and she adores animals. She spent ages stroking the little lambs and I felt awful about the fact I eat it - not often, I might add as I'm not a massive meat-eater, but enough.

And I love leather; bags, shoes, belts.

I feel quite ashamed of myself actually

Not being horrible, but I am glad you see that view Eddie, because it shows, when we really think about animals, we are appalled at what we use them for, hence why I make the view about people making a beeline all the time on halal. This to me arguments on Halal, though some have been genuine once have now been used for other purposes.

I was a vegetarian once.
My argument was always: if you can't eat something raw, then it wasn't meant to be eaten.

Of course people did say you can eat beef and lamb almost raw but still.....

by SEXY MAMA Fri Apr 18, 2014 9:36 pm

Hello All

Please have a read.

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 most unpleasant to onlookers who are falsely convinced that the animal suffers whilst its brain does actually no longer record any sensual messages.

The Western method

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.

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 9:57 pm

That's the scientific study I was talking about SM, after reading that, with the personal experience, I knew it was true.

by harvesmom Fri Apr 18, 2014 10:25 pm

With respect SM, those may have been the facts 36 years ago, that report is from 1978 and somewhat outdated in terms of the techniques used. And also the man who conducted the tests by his own admission says there may have been errors made.

However, in a study between 1974 and 1978 Wilhelm Schulze and his colleagues carried out a study at the School of Veterinary Medicine, Hannover University in Germany: "Attempts to Objectify Pain and Consciousness in Conventional (captive bolt pistol stunning) and Ritual (knife) Methods of Slaughtering Sheep and Calves"[22] is reported on Islamic websites[23][24] to have concluded that "the Islamic way of slaughtering is the most humane method of slaughter and that captive bolt stunning, practiced in the West, causes severe pain to the animal." However, recent studies have countered the Schulze study, which is dated and relied on older EEG measurement techniques. Dr. Schulze himself also warned in his report that the stunning technique may not have functioned properly.[25]

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 10:26 pm

lovedust wrote:
Percentage of pre-stunned halal meat is:-

81-88% according to the Food Standards Agency

75-100% depending on the animal according to the EU

90% depending on the animal according to the RSPCA

have a slice of halaal steak............................... if you can stomach it

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 10:29 pm

And you think there aren't videos of the killing of animals for meat by other methods that don't look just as disgusting. You are kidding yourself.

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 10:32 pm

harvesmom wrote:With respect SM, those may have been the facts 36 years ago, that report is from 1978 and somewhat outdated in terms of the techniques used. And also the man who conducted the tests by his own admission says there may have been errors made.

However, in a study between 1974 and 1978 Wilhelm Schulze and his colleagues carried out a study at the School of Veterinary Medicine, Hannover University in Germany: "Attempts to Objectify Pain and Consciousness in Conventional (captive bolt pistol stunning) and Ritual (knife) Methods of Slaughtering Sheep and Calves"[22] is reported on Islamic websites[23][24] to have concluded that "the Islamic way of slaughtering is the most humane method of slaughter and that captive bolt stunning, practiced in the West, causes severe pain to the animal." However, recent studies have countered the Schulze study, which is dated and relied on older EEG measurement techniques. Dr. Schulze himself also warned in his report that the stunning technique may not have functioned properly.[25]

That is a very out of date study, general rule of thumb I used when at uni, if its more than 3 years old be cautious, if its more than 5 years dont use it.
On the other hand Im beginning to think Sexy Mama is psychic, she hasnt been here for a week, but, not for the first time she manages to land first post just where sassy needs her, see Sassy mentioned the study and as if by magic... Marvellous
cheers

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 10:35 pm

Sassy wrote:And you think there aren't videos of the killing of animals for meat by other methods that don't look just as disgusting. You are kidding yourself.

the begining bit shows the WESTERN method of slaughter used CORRECTLY

the rest shows the Islamic method used CORRECTLY

tell me sassy if you had a suffering relative who you had to kill to end her suffering??

would you give her a bullet through the back of her head when she wasn't looking

or

spend ten minutes cutting her head off??

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 10:41 pm

Nems wrote:
harvesmom wrote:With respect SM, those may have been the facts 36 years ago, that report is from 1978 and somewhat outdated in terms of the techniques used. And also the man who conducted the tests by his own admission says there may have been errors made.

However, in a study between 1974 and 1978 Wilhelm Schulze and his colleagues carried out a study at the School of Veterinary Medicine, Hannover University in Germany: "Attempts to Objectify Pain and Consciousness in Conventional (captive bolt pistol stunning) and Ritual (knife) Methods of Slaughtering Sheep and Calves"[22] is reported on Islamic websites[23][24] to have concluded that "the Islamic way of slaughtering is the most humane method of slaughter and that captive bolt stunning, practiced in the West, causes severe pain to the animal." However, recent studies have countered the Schulze study, which is dated and relied on older EEG measurement techniques. Dr. Schulze himself also warned in his report that the stunning technique may not have functioned properly.[25]

That is a very out of date study, general rule of thumb I used when at uni, if its more than 3 years old be cautious, if its more than 5 years dont use it.
On the other hand Im beginning to think Sexy Mama is psychic, she hasnt been here for a week, but, not for the first time she manages to land first post just where sassy needs her, see Sassy mentioned the study and as if by magic... Marvellous

Or some people are not interested in the debate, but the person.
What Harvesmum fails again to comprehend is she still advocates eating meat and even joked about it showing her view is the so hypocritical and embarrassing, she has to attempt any desperate measure.

Again not one of you can seen tell me what is like to be stunned, you go off "mummy told me " not any research, because if there was, they would see they argue babble

by Irn Bru Fri Apr 18, 2014 10:44 pm

smelly_bandit wrote:
Sassy wrote:And you think there aren't videos of the killing of animals for meat by other methods that don't look just as disgusting. You are kidding yourself.

the begining bit shows the WESTERN method of slaughter used CORRECTLY

the rest shows the Islamic method used CORRECTLY

tell me sassy if you had a suffering relative who you had to kill to end her suffering??

would you give her a bullet through the back of her head when she wasn't looking

or

spend ten minutes cutting her head off??

I'm really surprised that animal welfare is high on your list of priorities, Smelly. In fact, I'm stunned.

by Guest Fri Apr 18, 2014 10:45 pm

smelly_bandit wrote:
Sassy wrote:And you think there aren't videos of the killing of animals for meat by other methods that don't look just as disgusting. You are kidding yourself.

the begining bit shows the WESTERN method of slaughter used CORRECTLY

the rest shows the Islamic method used CORRECTLY

tell me sassy if you had a suffering relative who you had to kill to end her suffering??

would you give her a bullet through the back of her head when she wasn't looking

or

spend ten minutes cutting her head off??

Animals for meat don't get a bullet through the back of the head, they get stunned, which produces pain, or electrocuted before their throats are cut while their heart is still beating to pump all the blood out. In 88% of halal they get stunned and then the same happens. A small percentage have their throats are cut without stunning. They are not hacked, it has to be one fast cut through both carotid arteries and the jugular and wind pipe but it must not sever the spine. It empties the brain of blood within seconds. The only method that does not use stunning at all, is kosher.

by Sponsored content