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 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??

The definition of stupidity.

A person claiming to know Christianity, off the back of being indoctrinated telling others what another is whilst never even studying that faith, exposed for doing so, when verses contradict his stupidity.
Smelly has no conception of Christianity and claims to know Islam off reading some verses, one moment.

://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/:

Give me a break this idiot emails people as I have been emailed myself an argument he was stuck on, ha ha ha ha ha ha, so funny when you catch out an idiot

by harvesmom Fri Apr 18, 2014 10:55 pm

Didge wrote:
Nems wrote:

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

Christ Almighty Didge, I disagree with your opinion, get over it OK? Have you ever, for one minute considered the possibility that you may be wrong???? No thought not..... anyway you don't have to keep dragging me into your posts you know, its frankly weird behaviour now. I don't know how old you are, but sometimes in life people disagree with our opinions, its a fact of life that we have to live with, so you're just going to have to take a deep breath and get over it I'm afraid.

by Guest Sat Apr 19, 2014 12:18 am

Sassy wrote:
smelly_bandit wrote:

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.

So you would choose to hack her head off for ten minutes

Okay :aspukeas:

Anyone else choose the worst form of death imaginable for their loved ones??

Or is it just sassy??

by Tommy Monk Sat Apr 19, 2014 1:09 am

SM, your scientific study, what does ECG stand for?

And how might the electric shock/stunning affect the ECG readings?

....????

Smile

by Tommy Monk Sat Apr 19, 2014 1:32 am

Sassy wrote:
smelly_bandit wrote:
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.

Read the flap link I provided.

Stunned and unconscious during dispatch = not halal

Lightly stunned but recovered to consciousness and alive and kicking while dispatched = not halal - the alive and kicking part is a requirement of halal, but the light stunning is seen as causing pain and suffering to the animal which is forbidden.

by Guest Sat Apr 19, 2014 6:47 am

harvesmom wrote:
Didge wrote:

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

Christ Almighty Didge, I disagree with your opinion, get over it OK? Have you ever, for one minute considered the possibility that you may be wrong???? No thought not..... anyway you don't have to keep dragging me into your posts you know, its frankly weird behaviour now. I don't know how old you are, but sometimes in life people disagree with our opinions, its a fact of life that we have to live with, so you're just going to have to take a deep breath and get over it I'm afraid.

You can disagree all you like, what you fail to do is show my view is wrong and yet again use some pathetic childish attempt to diverge again and talk instead about me. Not sure if you had noticed but this is a debate forum, where people debate topics, it may help if you actually engaged in doing that as much as I am flattered with all your views on me. Smile

Happy with that as it shows you offer little to the debate and proves even more you have no case, hence why it is you that needs to get over the fact, not I darling

by Tommy Monk Sat Apr 19, 2014 3:36 pm

by eddie Sat Apr 19, 2014 3:48 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:D

SM only made one post and went.

by harvesmom Sat Apr 19, 2014 4:48 pm

eddie wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:D

SM only made one post and went.

:ashmmmas: I know! I thought it was a bit weird tbh

by Guest Sat Apr 19, 2014 4:49 pm

eddie wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:D

SM only made one post and went.

I noticed too Edds, I have had a long chat with her today and she is fine x

by eddie Sat Apr 19, 2014 4:59 pm

Nems wrote:
eddie wrote:

SM only made one post and went.

I noticed too Edds, I have had a long chat with her today and she is fine x

I never imagined she wasn't? Suspect

by Guest Sat Apr 19, 2014 5:09 pm

eddie wrote:
Nems wrote:

I noticed too Edds, I have had a long chat with her today and she is fine x

I never imagined she wasn't?

:

:
You is scary

by eddie Sat Apr 19, 2014 5:21 pm

Nems wrote:
eddie wrote:

I never imagined she wasn't?

::
You is scary

I know

by Guest Sat Apr 19, 2014 9:43 pm

Firstly didge...stop the nonsense waffling about animals rights to life...they havnt got any....
AND indeed HUMANS right to life is not "god given"; across MOST of the world it is conditional and across ALL of the world it is granted by society ..THERE are NO such things as Rights...merely things called rights which are granted to you by the state you live in. (and these are ONLY granted to keep the peace)

secondly killing per se isnt inhumane (unless you are an emotional cripple) THE METHOD of killing however could be.

So your whole argument of somehow breaching an animals right to life (and thus being inhumane) is emotional smoke and mirrors, delusional and childish.

by Guest Sat Apr 19, 2014 9:48 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:Firstly didge...stop the nonsense waffling about animals rights to life...they havnt got any....
AND indeed HUMANS right to life is not "god given"; across MOST of the world it is conditional and across ALL of the world it is granted by society ..THERE are NO such things as Rights...merely things called rights which are granted to you by the state you live in. (and these are ONLY granted to keep the peace)

secondly killing per se isnt inhumane (unless you are an emotional cripple) THE METHOD of killing however could be.

So your whole argument of somehow breaching an animals right to life (and thus being inhumane) is emotional smoke and mirrors, delusional and childish.

Dear me, there you go animals have no rights, but he wishes to discuss their humane rights to the methods of their death. I am sorry, do you wish to explain that again, surely if you believe animals have no rights as you just admitted, then no animal has a right to a humane death either, because it has no rights. Thus you then have just admitted you have no rights to have any issue with religious slaughter.

Oh my, what a massive fuck up eh Victor

Oh killing is immoral and inhumane, because you take life from someone, what you are saying or trying very badly to claim is it is sometimes okay to take life, when it never is. Had this debate with Quill and tried to argue that soldiers have a right to kill and guess what I knew I had lost the debate after his reply, because morally it is always wrong to kill. I know this more than any, because I could not find one moral view point to claim it was, even though I wanted to believe it was so.

So you have now agreed there is no issue with halal, as animals to not have any rights.

Whoops

by Guest Sat Apr 19, 2014 10:05 pm

Didge wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:Firstly didge...stop the nonsense waffling about animals rights to life...they havnt got any....
AND indeed HUMANS right to life is not "god given"; across MOST of the world it is conditional and across ALL of the world it is granted by society ..THERE are NO such things as Rights...merely things called rights which are granted to you by the state you live in. (and these are ONLY granted to keep the peace)

secondly killing per se isnt inhumane (unless you are an emotional cripple) THE METHOD of killing however could be.

So your whole argument of somehow breaching an animals right to life (and thus being inhumane) is emotional smoke and mirrors, delusional and childish.

Dear me, there you go animals have no rights, but he wishes to discuss their humane rights to the methods of their death. I am sorry, do you wish to explain that again, surely if you believe animals have no rights as you just admitted, then no animal has a right to a humane death either, because it has no rights. Thus you then have just admitted you have no rights to have any issue with religious slaughter.

dear me...didge loosing the plot...making extensions to an argument where no exist....

ou are seriously one sick individual if you cannot see that whilst an animal has no "right to life" it Should NOT be caused to suffer a prolonged and painful death...
if you cannot see the difference..you are part of the problem not the cure.

Oh my, what a massive fuck up eh Victor

yes you did rather, with your childish hysteria

Oh killing is immoral and inhumane, because you take life from someone, what you are saying or trying very badly to claim is it is sometimes okay to take life, when it never is.

Bull shit...who says so, and more importantly why do they say so

Had this debate with Quill and tried to argue that soldiers have a right to kill and guess what I knew I had lost the debate after his reply, because morally it is always wrong to kill. I know this more than any, because I could not find one moral view point to claim it was, even though I wanted to believe it was so.

morals and rights are man made concepts didge, and as for moral arguments as to killing being right....there are plenty available....

in defence of self (otherwise you are caught in the "catch 22 of not defending is suicide, and suicide is moraly wrong in fact its as bad since its "self killing")
in defence of others (otherwise you are in the catch 22 of "inaction is the same as affirmative action " and you are guilty of that persons death as much by your inaction as any direct action taken by the assailant)
just to give you 2

So you have now agreed there is no issue with halal, as animals to not have any rights.

No I havnt...please elucidate your logic whereby you can claim this....

Whoops

by Guest Sat Apr 19, 2014 10:11 pm

Hilarious, so an animal has no right to live according to victor, but has a right to being treated well, even though its life is the biggest right it has, one moment.

://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/:

It does not get anymore utterly absurd than that, I do love it though when you catch a person in a trap, as you stated Victor:

THERE are NO such things as Rights

If that is the case, an animal has no right to any humane treatment off the same logic you apply here.

Again even killing another when in self defense is still morally wrong, because you have the option not to do so. We then get onto the grounds that killing is a necessary evil to save a life, but the reality is a life has been taken to prevent that life. Do not get me wrong I agree with self defense and armies engaging in war, but again there is no moral argument to kill

by Guest Sat Apr 19, 2014 10:40 pm

Didge wrote:Hilarious, so an animal has no right to live according to victor, but has a right to being treated well, even though its life is the biggest right it has, one moment.

://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/:

It does not get anymore utterly absurd than that, I do love it though when you catch a person in a trap, as you stated Victor:

THERE are NO such things as Rights fcdvvvvvvvvvvvvv

If that is the case, an animal has no right to any humane treatment off the same logic you apply here.

That is just an absurd (mis)interpretaion of my point and YOU are in the trap dear child, not me. It is YOU who sees only black or white...not me. As I said you are sick in the head if you cannot see the essential difference between not torturing an animal to death and the straightforward act of killing, and it is your logic that is flawed....

Again even killing another when in self defense is still morally wrong, because you have the option not to do so.

Not so...IF you take the view that you have the moral imperative to preserve your own life, It then comes down to an argument as to whether or not all moral imperatives are of equal "strength". (which, given the wide ranging moral compass of humanity, seems unlikely)

We then get onto the grounds that killing is a necessary evil to save a life, but the reality is a life has been taken to prevent that life. Do not get me wrong I agree with self defense and armies engaging in war, but again there is no moral argument to kill

by eddie Sat Apr 19, 2014 10:41 pm

I must admit vic, I don't get what you're saying either?
If an animal has "no right to life" then how and why does it matter about the way they are killed? scratch

by Guest Sat Apr 19, 2014 10:45 pm

eddie wrote:I must admit vic, I don't get what you're saying either?
If an animal has "no right to life" then how and why does it matter about the way they are killed?

Glad you see my point Eddie, as again all I am doing is exposing a hypocritical view point.

So here is Victors view point, an animal has no right to live, even though this is the biggest right morally it has, but it has a right to be hunted and slaughtered but in humane methods? Sorry does that not reek of a contradiction Eddie? Even worse Victor is an advocate of hunting, where animals are even of a lesser chance o be killed outright, where an animal is running for its existence.

Hence I am glad you see why I will attack poor view points, when people eat meat and claim the high moral ground.

by Guest Sat Apr 19, 2014 10:49 pm

which would you rather have if death was inevitable....

a quick clean end...bang your gone

or spend a long time writhing in pain????

one does NOT have to grant "rights" to have a reasonable degree of empathy
one does not have to empathise over whether existence "matters" to be able to empathise over whether pain and suffering matter.....

the two are distinctly separate issues

by Guest Sat Apr 19, 2014 10:53 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:which would you rather have if death was inevitable....

a quick clean end...bang your gone

or spend a long time writhing in pain????

one does NOT have to grant "rights" to have a reasonable degree of empathy
one does not have to empathise over whether existence "matters" to be able to empathise over whether pain and suffering matter.....

the two are distinctly separate issues

Again utterly absurd trying to excuse killing, I think anyone given a choice would rather have the right to live

You have no moral argument over Halal as proven, in fact it shows it has nothing to do with methods as you believe animals have no rights, thus it is more a view point you have against Muslims.

Exposed

by eddie Sat Apr 19, 2014 11:02 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:which would you rather have if death was inevitable....

a quick clean end...bang your gone

or spend a long time writhing in pain????

one does NOT have to grant "rights" to have a reasonable degree of empathy
one does not have to empathise over whether existence "matters" to be able to empathise over whether pain and suffering matter.....

the two are distinctly separate issues

Hmmm but you did make the point of saying that an animal has no right to live, so why do you,care then, how is dies???

by Guest Sat Apr 19, 2014 11:03 pm

Didge wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:which would you rather have if death was inevitable....

a quick clean end...bang your gone

or spend a long time writhing in pain????

one does NOT have to grant "rights" to have a reasonable degree of empathy
one does not have to empathise over whether existence "matters" to be able to empathise over whether pain and suffering matter.....

the two are distinctly separate issues

Again utterly absurd trying to excuse killing, I think anyone given a choice would rather have the right to live

given that I dont agree that animals have the "right to life" that is absurd and going in circles.....the question posed was "if death was inevitable"

You have no moral argument over Halal as proven, in fact it shows it has nothing to do with methods as you believe animals have no rights, thus it is more a view point you have against Muslims.

not so...try understanding the above...the right to life doesnt exist and arguments over that (and I agree that there is disagreement there) ARE a different issue as to whether the method of killing is acceptable This is beyond any argument over halal....

Exposed

by Guest Sat Apr 19, 2014 11:10 pm

eddie wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:which would you rather have if death was inevitable....

a quick clean end...bang your gone

or spend a long time writhing in pain????

one does NOT have to grant "rights" to have a reasonable degree of empathy
one does not have to empathise over whether existence "matters" to be able to empathise over whether pain and suffering matter.....

the two are distinctly separate issues

Hmmm but you did make the point of saying that an animal has no right to live, so why do you,care then, how is dies???

you really cant see that point eddie????????....I feel sorry for you, there is a hole where your soul should be.....

very few animals are "self aware" that is to say aware of their existence as the "I". They dont "think therefore I am"

thus they dont ponder upon existence as we do, therefor their own existence or lack thereof causes them no concern

they can however feel physical pain and suffer..just as we do...so whilst not being concerned about ending an existence which is unrecognised (by the animal) i AM concerned that in ending that existence I do so with as little pain and suffering as I possibly can.

by Guest Sat Apr 19, 2014 11:10 pm

Behave Victor, you are wrapping yourself in knots, to say anyone does not have the right to life, means nobody has any rights, because a right to live is fundamental to anyone's existence. Thus if you feel an animal has no right to exist except to feed your belly, it has no right to any humane treatment either, because its death is serving your purpose and not its. Thus to say no animal has a right to live is the ultimate right you are denying it and again only to serve your needs, to eat it. Thus to then bemoan its treatment how it dies is pathetic and an ultimate contradiction, because given the choice would the animal have a quick death, or the right to life.
The right to live, you are excusing killing, which is morally wrong because it only serves your needs, to then claim views on how it is killed when you never asked if that animal wanted to be killed in the first place .

I suggest you bow out, as I have no wish to humiliate you further mate

You have no concept of morality do you?

by Guest Sat Apr 19, 2014 11:14 pm

Didge wrote:
eddie wrote:I must admit vic, I don't get what you're saying either?
If an animal has "no right to life" then how and why does it matter about the way they are killed?

Glad you see my point Eddie, as again all I am doing is exposing a hypocritical view point.

So here is Victors view point, an animal has no right to live, even though this is the biggest right morally it has, but it has a right to be hunted and slaughtered but in humane methods? Sorry does that not reek of a contradiction Eddie? Even worse Victor is an advocate of hunting, where animals are even of a lesser chance o be killed outright, where an animal is running for its existence.
erm...didge....just what the f88k do you think I hunt for christ sake???

what I hunt sits eating grass...or blithely flying along in ignorance. right up until.......
bloody ell...i'd be looking a daft bugger chasing rabbits round and round a field....
and even dafter chasing pigeon across the sky....I know i walk on water but flying is a bit beyond even me, and hiring a eurofighter is a bit expensive....

Hence I am glad you see why I will attack poor view points, when people eat meat and claim the high moral ground.

by Guest Sat Apr 19, 2014 11:18 pm

Didge wrote:Behave Victor, you are wrapping yourself in knots, to say anyone does not have the right to life, means nobody has any rights, because a right to live is fundamental to anyone's existence. Thus if you feel an animal has no right to exist except to feed your belly, it has no right to any humane treatment either, because its death is serving your purpose and not its. Thus to say no animal has a right to live is the ultimate right you are denying it and again only to serve your needs, to eat it. Thus to then bemoan its treatment how it dies is pathetic and an ultimate contradiction, because given the choice would the animal have a quick death, or the right to life.
The right to live, you are excusing killing, which is morally wrong because it only serves your needs, to then claim views on how it is killed when you never asked if that animal wanted to be killed in the first place .

I suggest you bow out, as I have no wish to humiliate you further mate

You have no concept of morality do you?

You ...humiliate me....???? what with your immature and emotive "logic"

that will be the day...

You see didge ...thats your trouble....you think (wrongly) that you are the font of all righteousness and knowlege...and you are nothing of the sort...

YOUR morality is bankrupt, self serving and corrupt....

by Guest Sat Apr 19, 2014 11:18 pm

What ever you hunt will be either running for its existence or in ignorance you are about to take its life just for your own personal pleasure.

You claim thus the animal has no rights to live, you take away its right and deny it a choice, yet then quibble over the method of denying that animal a choice to exist.

Sorry, absurd argument, it matters not how you are self acclaimed great at hunting, you still deny that animal of a choice, as just as you had the choice not to interfere with its existance

by Guest Sat Apr 19, 2014 11:21 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:
Didge wrote:Behave Victor, you are wrapping yourself in knots, to say anyone does not have the right to life, means nobody has any rights, because a right to live is fundamental to anyone's existence. Thus if you feel an animal has no right to exist except to feed your belly, it has no right to any humane treatment either, because its death is serving your purpose and not its. Thus to say no animal has a right to live is the ultimate right you are denying it and again only to serve your needs, to eat it. Thus to then bemoan its treatment how it dies is pathetic and an ultimate contradiction, because given the choice would the animal have a quick death, or the right to life.
The right to live, you are excusing killing, which is morally wrong because it only serves your needs, to then claim views on how it is killed when you never asked if that animal wanted to be killed in the first place .

I suggest you bow out, as I have no wish to humiliate you further mate

You have no concept of morality do you?

You ...humiliate me....???? what with your immature and emotive "logic"

that will be the day...

You see didge ...thats your trouble....you think (wrongly) that you are the font of all righteousness and knowlege...and you are nothing of the sort...

YOUR morality is bankrupt, self serving and corrupt....

Game over and you know why, no counter, just personal view points about me.

Sorry you were easy on this Victor and you know you have lost and you know why, you had no logical view point.

Better luck next time

I can be wrong victor and happy to admit as people know me well I do, though I do struggle with it, happy to admit, but here and sorry you have been weighed, measured and left found wanting

by Guest Sat Apr 19, 2014 11:23 pm

Good night Victor.

All the best

by Guest Sat Apr 19, 2014 11:39 pm

So, let us look at what didge and eddie are saying here....

they are effectively saying that since in their opinion killing itself is inhumane, HOW the killing is done doesnt matter...regardless

one is left to presume that therefore they consider that practice of slowly hanging dogs before killing them (as practiced in some parts of china is ok???

AND moreover that they would be happy to hack a leg off a living rabbit/chicken whatever to cook and eat...leaving the creature to die a slow miserable death....

SINCE by their own arguments its only the act of killing that matters...NOT the means...

sorry guys....your own argument......put in perspective.....

by Guest Sat Apr 19, 2014 11:46 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:So, let us look at what didge and eddie are saying here....

they are effectively saying that since in their opinion killing itself is inhumane, HOW the killing is done doesnt matter...regardless

one is left to presume that therefore they consider that practice of slowly hanging dogs before killing them (as practiced in some parts of china is ok???

AND moreover that they would be happy to hack a leg off a living rabbit/chicken whatever to cook and eat...leaving the creature to die a slow miserable death....

SINCE by their own arguments its only the act of killing that matters...NOT the means...

sorry guys....your own argument......put in perspective.....

Actually Eddie never said any view point, she asked you a question, even worse you claim she picked a side when she did nothing of the sort, all she asked is why your view made little sense, poor show my man.

My view point on any killing is the same, I am a hypocrite because I have no issue with animals being slaughtered to feed me with meat. So is slowly hanging dogs till they die wrong? Yes, because the end scenario is still the same, they are killing the dogs and yet again you quibble over the method, when the existence of the animal is the most important aspect of its life. You wish to deny this off having what you feel is a sport, being so easily a one sided affair where you get to kill to gratify your selfish needs.

Sorry do you really wish to continue, because you will get to a point where the hole really is just to big to dig yourself out of

by Guest Sun Apr 20, 2014 12:01 am

Didge wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:So, let us look at what didge and eddie are saying here....

they are effectively saying that since in their opinion killing itself is inhumane, HOW the killing is done doesnt matter...regardless

one is left to presume that therefore they consider that practice of slowly hanging dogs before killing them (as practiced in some parts of china is ok???

AND moreover that they would be happy to hack a leg off a living rabbit/chicken whatever to cook and eat...leaving the creature to die a slow miserable death....

SINCE by their own arguments its only the act of killing that matters...NOT the means...

sorry guys....your own argument......put in perspective.....

Actually Eddie never said any view point, she asked you a question, even worse you claim she picked a side when she did nothing of the sort, all she asked is why your view made little sense, poor show my man.

My view point on any killing is the same, I am a hypocrite because I have no issue with animals being slaughtered to feed me with meat. So is slowly hanging dogs till they die wrong? Yes, because the end scenario is still the same, they are killing the dogs and yet again you quibble over the method, when the existence of the animal is the most important aspect of its life.

wrong didge...factually and philosophically wrong....To an animal its existence per se is not a concept it holds (as far as any one can reasonably ascertain)
To an extent I can see your point...BUT i maintain you are incorrect in your claim that the means does not matter....I mean...come on...would you hack the leg off a living creature to cook ...and leave the rest writhing in agony? Because THAT is what you are implying....

your logic runs

killing is OF ITSELF inhumane
therefor HOW something is killed is irelevant
therefore I can justify ANY AMOUNT of inhumane treatment
IF....it suits my purpose

that is NOT a tenable position in ANY philosophy I know of

even if I personally find halal to be dubious in humane terms those who practice it would claim the opposite and be able to give good observational evidence to back their claim. Even In the Muslim philosophy humane and merciful treatment to animals is mandatory. I would immagine a Muslim philosopher would find your view on this to say the least puzzling and perhaps even downright wrong.

You wish to deny this off having what you feel is a sport, being so easily a one sided affair where you get to kill to gratify your selfish needs.

Sorry do you really wish to continue, because you will get to a point where the hole really is just to big to dig yourself out of

by Guest Sun Apr 20, 2014 12:13 am

Of course it is logical, if you deny a person the right or animal to live, what does it matter how they die, because you have denied them the fundamental right to exist.

Again it would be absurd for you to hold any view point on halal, because your view is the most barbaric, it has no real survival needs but selfish needs of the person wishing to kill to gratify their needs.

Again what ever you answer you will lose here, you flog a dead horse here

by Guest Sun Apr 20, 2014 12:33 am

Didge wrote:Of course it is logical, if you deny a person the right or animal to live, what does it matter how they die, because you have denied them the fundamental right to exist.

repeating yourself dont make it any "righter" didge...you are defending the indefensible and an absurd philosophical point....

answer the two questions I have posed ....

1) given that your death was inevitable...(and it is ...sooner or later....later I hope) what would you choose...quick and as pain free as possible or long drawn out and agonising??

2) by your argument you would happily cut of the leg of a living creature to eat....leaving the rest to writhe in agony

IS THAT SO?

Again it would be absurd for you to hold any view point on halal, because your view is the most barbaric, it has no real survival needs but selfish needs of the person wishing to kill to gratify their needs. (I shoot for the pot didge....apart from pest control...though some "pests" are actually tasty and do go in the pot)

Again what ever you answer you will lose here, you flog a dead horse here

by Guest Sun Apr 20, 2014 12:51 am

I told you given the choice every time I would choose life.
You think dictating the questions makes you view more valid, behave sunshine, your view to kill animals no matter how you perceive it, you are still denying that animal its right to existence.

Thus you have an utter weak argument, because you justify killing and eve worse off your own needs

by Ben Reilly Sun Apr 20, 2014 6:05 am

Sometimes people repeat themselves when they're right but people aren't listening ... putting your comments in red doesn't make them any more valid Razz

by Guest Sun Apr 20, 2014 11:03 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:Sometimes people repeat themselves when they're right but people aren't listening ... putting your comments in red doesn't make them any more valid

A person who is right doesn't need to repeat themselves repeatedly

by Guest Sun Apr 20, 2014 11:13 am

smelly_bandit wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:Sometimes people repeat themselves when they're right but people aren't listening ... putting your comments in red doesn't make them any more valid

A person who is right doesn't need to repeat themselves repeatedly

Funny as I had to here.

by Guest Sun Apr 20, 2014 11:28 am

Didge wrote:
smelly_bandit wrote:

A person who is right doesn't need to repeat themselves repeatedly

Funny as I had to here.

Yes didge you always HAVE to repeat yourself

by Guest Sun Apr 20, 2014 11:30 am

[quote="smelly_bandit"]

Didge wrote:

Funny as I had to here.

Yes didge you always HAVE to repeat yourself [/quote

Yes its true when some like you are are so simple minded it does not sink in

::D::

by Guest Sun Apr 20, 2014 11:49 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:Sometimes people repeat themselves when they're right but people aren't listening ... putting your comments in red doesn't make them any more valid

I think the comments were put in red to make it easier to see what was original post and what was reply.

by eddie Sun Apr 20, 2014 5:23 pm

Nems wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:Sometimes people repeat themselves when they're right but people aren't listening ... putting your comments in red doesn't make them any more valid

I think the comments were put in red to make it easier to see what was original post and what was reply.

I nearly said that but.......couldn't be arsed as I thought it was rather obvious.

by Guest Sun Apr 20, 2014 5:58 pm

Didge wrote:I told you given the choice every time I would choose life.
You think dictating the questions makes you view more valid, behave sunshine, your view to kill animals no matter how you perceive it, you are still denying that animal its right to existence.

Thus you have an utter weak argument, because you justify killing and eve worse off your own needs

COWARD...answer the questions.....

by Guest Sun Apr 20, 2014 6:00 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:Sometimes people repeat themselves when they're right but people aren't listening ... putting your comments in red doesn't make them any more valid

Unless you have something to add ...shurrup...they are put in red to distinguish them from the post they are within....
posting within a post is sometimes the best way of seperating and tackling individual points,,,,

by Guest Sun Apr 20, 2014 6:05 pm

Didge wrote:I told you given the choice every time I would choose life.
You think dictating the questions makes you view more valid, behave sunshine, your view to kill animals no matter how you perceive it, you are still denying that animal its right to existence.

Thus you have an utter weak argument, because you justify killing and eve worse off your own needs

and by your argument you justify torture of animals...."for your own needs"

You are a moral coward...since you employ others to kill for you,
you are doubly hypocritical because not only do you eat meat, but criticise someone for doing what YOU pay someone else to do....

You are utterly and irretrievably wrong with this didge, the fact that you wont answer those two questions shows how weak your argument is....

by Guest Sun Apr 20, 2014 6:18 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:
Didge wrote:I told you given the choice every time I would choose life.
You think dictating the questions makes you view more valid, behave sunshine, your view to kill animals no matter how you perceive it, you are still denying that animal its right to existence.

Thus you have an utter weak argument, because you justify killing and eve worse off your own needs

and by your argument you justify torture of animals...."for your own needs"

You are a moral coward...since you employ others to kill for you,
you are doubly hypocritical because not only do you eat meat, but criticise someone for doing what YOU pay someone else to do....

You are utterly and irretrievably wrong with this didge, the fact that you wont answer those two questions shows how weak your argument is....

I have already admitted I am a hypocrite with eating meat, I guess you missed that whole point and please spare me about torture, when you hunt animals for fun, that is not only hilariously dim, but absurd.

Again you have no case against Halal, as you admitted an animal has no rights.

Your questions are not only irrelevant to the point at hand, but also absurd, lets see if you can have a brain to think why?

by Guest Sun Apr 20, 2014 7:23 pm

Didge wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:

and by your argument you justify torture of animals...."for your own needs"

You are a moral coward...since you employ others to kill for you,
you are doubly hypocritical because not only do you eat meat, but criticise someone for doing what YOU pay someone else to do....

You are utterly and irretrievably wrong with this didge, the fact that you wont answer those two questions shows how weak your argument is....

I have already admitted I am a hypocrite with eating meat, You are also a moral coward..... I guess you missed that whole point and please spare me about torture,

Please enumerate your points whereby you claim hunting is torturing an animal

when you hunt animals for fun, that is not only hilariously dim, but absurd.

Again you have no case against Halal, as you admitted an animal has no rights.

Your questions are not only irrelevant to the point at hand, but also absurd, lets see if you can have a brain to think why?

If you cant see the relevence didge i can only immagine you enjoyed pulling the wings of flies as a kid....

they are absolutely relevant...
the only reason you wont answer them is that if you answer them honestly your whole argument comes tumbling down....
you keep harking back to halal, which belies your intent. YOU would do anything to protect your concept and your pet islamophillia....

whatever the arguments about THAT...as I said earlier this is beyond that, this has become purely philosophical....and you have coped out...

I win HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

(as you would say)

Lets try another approach to this philosophical point

YOU say animals have the right to life

are we wrong therefore to put a suffering animal to death (since by your argument, since it is going to die anyway, the means doesnt matter)
AFTER ALL...Humans (apparantly) have a "right to life" and YET...we dont euthanise them....we make em suffer, even if they WANT to die?

IF the answer is yes we are RIGHT, then should we use the quickest and kindest method...or just hack em up?

If the answer is NO we are not right to end their suffering.....then are you saying that we should just leave em to starve/dehydrate/whatever.(the animals that is)

by Guest Sun Apr 20, 2014 8:04 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:
Didge wrote:

I have already admitted I am a hypocrite with eating meat, You are also a moral coward..... I guess you missed that whole point and please spare me about torture,

Please enumerate your points whereby you claim hunting is torturing an animal

when you hunt animals for fun, that is not only hilariously dim, but absurd.

Again you have no case against Halal, as you admitted an animal has no rights.

Your questions are not only irrelevant to the point at hand, but also absurd, lets see if you can have a brain to think why?

If you cant see the relevence didge i can only immagine you enjoyed pulling the wings of flies as a kid....

they are absolutely relevant...
the only reason you wont answer them is that if you answer them honestly your whole argument comes tumbling down....
you keep harking back to halal, which belies your intent. YOU would do anything to protect your concept and your pet islamophillia....

whatever the arguments about THAT...as I said earlier this is beyond that, this has become purely philosophical....and you have coped out...

I win HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

(as you would say)

Lets try another approach to this philosophical point

YOU say animals have the right to life

are we wrong therefore to put a suffering animal to death (since by your argument, since it is going to die anyway, the means doesnt matter)
AFTER ALL...Humans (apparantly) have a "right to life" and YET...we dont euthanise them....we make em suffer, even if they WANT to die?

IF the answer is yes we are RIGHT, then should we use the quickest and kindest method...or just hack em up?

If the answer is NO we are not right to end their suffering.....then are you saying that we should just leave em to starve/dehydrate/whatever.(the animals that is)

There is no relevance to your questions, because you advocate the animal does not have rights and to ask me what I would choose when the animal never has such a choice is not only daft but also utterly absurd, showing now comparison to the animals plight, hence clearly why you are showing how utterly stupid you are.

The simple fact is it is irrelevant how an animal dies if you deny that animal a right to live in the first place, making your view on humane treatments utter babble, because the ultimate humane treatment would be the animal being allowed to live.

Arguing now from a view point where the animal is dying has just made me PMSL, it is thus dying anyway, and would die, thus you still deny its right to life, by talking that life, even out of what you feel is the right thing to do.

Seriously that made me laugh and now this is your view to kill animals off the back of ones dying, one moment

://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/:

That is called a desperation argument when your back is against the wall and is utterly pathetic

Maybe tomorrow you will post something that is intelligent, because if you advocate killing animals, when there is no need to kill them, when the only reason they are being killed is to satisfy your own needs to eat them, which also negates the daft view you had on animals dying also, because you are placing your selfish needs over the right of an animal to exist.

So easy I am now feeling embarrassed for you

by Sponsored content