You Must Question

First topic message reminder :

30th April 2014

Just how many Muslims are living amongst us.

For 200 Subways to change their menu to cater for them and not us. That's 200 areas of England!

For banks to go out of their way to introduce new products - that isn't cheap and i know it isn't just Lloyds TSB.

For our schools and other public places to only serve halal food.

Now, if i were a business - whether for profit or not-for-profit, i'd cater for the majority.

Please discuss.

And that's not even considering what the lack of farming would do to the Uk economy.. or what all those millions of acres of land that is only suitable for grazing will be used for.

And more importantly, what will my dog eat   I can't see him sitting waiting by the oven door for a Linda McCartney sausage to be cooked.

well you see gerbs..if there is one thing I have learned over the years it is that the veggies/animal rights/other emotional cripples have lots of "ideas" about what the majority of humanity is doing wrong...but bugger all suggestions as to how to go about resolving them.

like the fox hunting debate....they cant deny that (especially) old foxes are a problem to rural communities, and that "fox proofing" is virtually impossible and/or prohibitively expensive.....but have NO idea as to what to do about the problem..."oh something can be done" is the usual "helpful answer"

sadly folks...we live in a world where minorities and emotional cripples are not only tolerated ....but encouraged...instead of being slapped down and told to "get a life and get in line"....

victorisnotamused wrote:wouldnt know about that gerbs...high heels aint my thing...but I would imagine it could cause a modicum of distress....

A modicum................. that is thank goodness more than a soupcon, but ................

Anyways.....

let me take you there

You as a person are standing in wonderful high heels, they look divine btw. Match your perfect outfit, you is felling good.

You now stand in a puddle only with your left shoe. Shoes are moulded from quorn ( YUK ) Shoe immediately begins to disintegrate....... You are now one up one down and looking stupid......... can you or would possibly continue your evening out......... No stupid question it would be a very quick return back to base.

Moral

never wear shoes that are are made from a substance described as good for the planet.

Leather is a very important product.

Joy Division wrote:Victor I  do remember some of this now...

What Didge seems to be saying is that since we have denied animals rights, then what does it matter as to its fate...as it's going to get what's coming anyway ...

He admits like me he eats meat  ( chicken and pork for me) and is hypocritical like me as he admits on that score, but again like me, think although he eats meat , he could  never go and kill an animal HIMSELF for any reason.,,

He just means since meat is available  anyway , he will eat it, but would never kill one with his own hands, I know what he means, as neither would i ...and could go without meat if it was no longer available to buy.

didge ALSO in that or another similar thread implied that owners who had a suffering, terminally sick animal euthanised were inhumane...because we cant ask the animal, i.e give it a choice. So I can only presume that he is content to "let nature take its course" and sit there whilst the poor animal ends its days writhing in pain.
but thats didge...only he could justify vile cruelty on the back of uneducated nonsense....

here

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t3992p200-pork-is-the-latest-front-in-europe-s-culture-wars#79387

I remember that discussion. Didge was basically saying because we eat meat and wear cosmetics (not that I am suggesting you do Victor Lol) that we have no right to say how an animal should be slaughtered because left to the animal it would live and not be killed, and we have already breached its rights by killing it anyway.

Then he said I was a dummy, hypocritical, a Nazi, a racist so I decided that he had lost the argument and left   

harvesmom wrote:I remember that discussion. Didge was basically saying because we eat meat and wear cosmetics (not that I am suggesting you do Victor Lol) that we have no right to say how an animal should be slaughtered because left to the animal it would live and not be killed, and we have already breached its rights by killing it anyway.

Then he said I was a dummy, hypocritical, a Nazi, a racist so I decided that he had lost the argument and left   

exactly...

now you see why i put the vicious little twerp on ignore.....

of course the fact i hunt seemed to wind him up a bit, but at least MY prey is dead...as in dead dead ...after being visited by me....

victorisnotamused wrote:

harvesmom wrote:I remember that discussion. Didge was basically saying because we eat meat and wear cosmetics (not that I am suggesting you do Victor Lol) that we have no right to say how an animal should be slaughtered because left to the animal it would live and not be killed, and we have already breached its rights by killing it anyway.

Then he said I was a dummy, hypocritical, a Nazi, a racist so I decided that he had lost the argument and left   

exactly...

now you see why i put the vicious little twerp on ignore.....

I always think its a good sign when people call you names though, means they don't have anything intelligent to add to your argument so they lost   

"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 ."

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t3992p200-pork-is-the-latest-front-in-europe-s-culture-wars#79067

The mantra of our one and only Didge......

Love it.....

How can an animal reply. Only Dr Doolittle can understand that one......

Light on reached top floor and have full pack of sandwiches.............. Maybe he is our one and only Doolittle..

:ashmmmas: 

well I guess we just have to accept that we are nasty inhumane meat eaters. and that granting our pets that "kind end" is a BAD THING TO DO....according to didge.......

perhaps the solution is to get the GM folks on it and grow a pig like that one in "restaurant at the end of the universe"...you know the one that says something along the lines of please eat me...and "i can recommend my loin2..or something.....then didge could spend all day trying to argue it out of its desire to be eaten......

It would likely commit suicide after 5 mins ...but hey ho.....

here you are

 

especially from 1:00 onwards.... ://?roflmao?/: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: 

yep 1 in 10 places        
Scaremongering cowards

ohh wait your English... carry on then business as usual

the BRITISH LION


          

harvesmom wrote:I remember that discussion. Didge was basically saying because we eat meat and wear cosmetics (not that I am suggesting you do Victor Lol) that we have no right to say how an animal should be slaughtered because left to the animal it would live and not be killed, and we have already breached its rights by killing it anyway.

Then he said I was a dummy, hypocritical, a Nazi, a racist so I decided that he had lost the argument and left   

Incredible, please post up these accusations Harvesmum, apart from calling you are dummy (which on this argument you are)? I do love exposing poor liars when I call ed you was a xenophobe and that people use arguments similar to the Nazi's against the Jews, dear me, you need to wash your mouth out with soap love, but thanks for exposing you cannot debate and now resort to telling porkies.

Again we all know that the issue here is nothing more than prejudice as stated and as seen I bet you never had an issue with Halal until after the rise of Islamic extremism did you? You see this is why it is a smokescreen, because people find any excuse to use prejudice arguments against groups of people and where have we seen that before in History?
Would you like a history lesson on that?

So yes it is hypocritical of you to wear products tested on animals just as I stated it is hypocritical of me to eat meat when the slaughter of animals is morally wrong, because we do not need to eat them.


At least I can admit my hypocrisy, you though cannot, which shows even more your view on halal is nothing more than a sham and an excuse to promote your prejudice in regards to Muslims.


Easy to expose people like yourself Harvesmum, as people who buy into fear, buy in to hate

gerber wrote:"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 ."

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t3992p200-pork-is-the-latest-front-in-europe-s-culture-wars#79067

The mantra of our one and only Didge......

Love it.....

How can an animal reply.  Only Dr Doolittle can understand that one......  

Light on reached top floor and have full pack of sandwiches..............  Maybe he is our one and only Doolittle..

Excellent Gerber you have just shown by your view points animals have no rights, because it cannot reply so why have you any fuss over how it is killed, when you are not bothered that it is killed?
It proves you argue a moot point, because the means of the animal is to live, not die is it not?

harvesmom wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:

exactly...

now you see why i put the vicious little twerp on ignore.....

I always think its a good sign when people call you names though, means they don't have anything intelligent to add to your argument so they lost   

Good point, this is Victor:



read the WHOLE of the exchange between that idiot troll and myself....
http://www.newsfixboard.com/post?p=87040&mode=quote





So by your logic Victor lost the argument and again called me a twerp above.




PMSL

What I find hilarious here is that prejudice people think we are stupid to their lies of their real intent, that is the real insult.

If you truly care about animals, especially when we do not need makeup for women or do not need to eat meat, then you have no claim in regards to humane rights for animals, because you have denied that animal its fundamental right to live in the first place and evolution shows that any species existence, is dependent on surviving. Humans though have manipulated animal populations to feed themselves with so they can gorge themselves on meat. Any person who really cares about the welfare on animals does not eat them or wear any products used and tested on animals, proving how poor and underhanded xenophobes are to promote views of prejudice against people.


The funniest part is that it is easily exposed, the only valid argument is on choice to know whether it is halal or not, but it is still meat just like any other no matter whether stunned or not because both have their throats slit, extinguishing the life of the animal.


Nothing more comical is people claiming to care about the welfare of animals whilst getting stuck into a Big Mac.


So thanks for the little interlude and posting about me, that does not make your point credible, all it does it expose the prejudice of some posters and it is easily done

If you want to see why Victor is the worst parent ever just read, because I guess he does not believe in teaching right from wrong:


and yes there was an issue a while back where a kid refused to join in a playground game and yes because he/she didnt want to play with the "black kid"....and got black marked....Thats wrong...absolutely and utterly. 

So we should not teach right and wrong and it is okay to shun people now because they are black?
Really?
Not sure if Victor has actually worked in his life, but an employee would get sacked for refusing to work with someone because they are black, or white for example. How is it right for a child to think it is okay to shun people because they are black, where on earth did he learn this is more the point, because yes kids tease each other, but over skin colour? Racism is something taught, yet Victor advocates that children should be allowed to be racist and that they can continue to grow up in life thinking racism is okay.


Holy crap on a cracker is all I can say

Oh and just for Gerber, you do not need to be Dr Doolittle.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129624.300-dolphin-whistle-instantly-translated-by-computer.html#.U2HqjYFdXfI

http://www.nonhumanrightsproject.org/2014/01/27/chimpanzees-use-gestures-to-communicate/



He who laughs last, laughs longest.


  


Have a good day Gerber

victorisnotamused wrote:

Joy Division wrote:Victor I  do remember some of this now...

What Didge seems to be saying is that since we have denied animals rights, then what does it matter as to its fate...as it's going to get what's coming anyway ...

He admits like me he eats meat  ( chicken and pork for me) and is hypocritical like me as he admits on that score, but again like me, think although he eats meat , he could  never go and kill an animal HIMSELF for any reason.,,

He just means since meat is available  anyway , he will eat it, but would never kill one with his own hands, I know what he means, as neither would i ...and could go without meat if it was no longer available to buy.

didge ALSO in that or another similar thread implied that owners who had a  suffering, terminally sick animal euthanised were inhumane...because we cant ask the animal, i.e give it a choice. So I can only presume that he is content to "let nature take its course" and sit there whilst the poor animal ends its days writhing in pain.
but thats didge...only he could justify vile cruelty on the back of uneducated nonsense....

Irony at its best. This coming from a man who likes to kill animals for sport.
Again I would not kill an animal even if dying, Joy understood this but you did not, yet you are happy to kill a healthy animal for pleasure or some pathetic excuse where humans have corrupted the animal populations and then advocate killing them, because they created the situation in the first place, please stop embarrassing yourself Victor, your view to claiming humane treatment is the most shocking sham of them all

You then have the cheek to moan about halal.

Epic fail

Didge wrote:If you want to see why Victor is the worst parent ever just read, because I guess he does not believe in teaching right from wrong:


and yes there was an issue a while back where a kid refused to join in a playground game and yes because he/she didnt want to play with the "black kid"....and got black marked....Thats wrong...absolutely and utterly. 

So we should not teach right and wrong and it is okay to shun people now because they are black?
Really?
Not sure if Victor has actually worked in his life, but an employee would get sacked for refusing to work with someone because they are black, or white for example. How is it right for a child to think it is okay to shun people because they are black, where on earth did he learn this is more the point, because yes kids tease each other, but over skin colour? Racism is something taught, yet Victor advocates that children should be allowed to be racist and that they can continue to grow up in life thinking racism is okay.


Holy crap on a cracker is all I can say  

didge - do you choose who your friends are?

I won't ask why or how - that's your choice.

End of story.

BigAndy9 wrote:

Didge wrote:If you want to see why Victor is the worst parent ever just read, because I guess he does not believe in teaching right from wrong:


and yes there was an issue a while back where a kid refused to join in a playground game and yes because he/she didnt want to play with the "black kid"....and got black marked....Thats wrong...absolutely and utterly. 

So we should not teach right and wrong and it is okay to shun people now because they are black?
Really?
Not sure if Victor has actually worked in his life, but an employee would get sacked for refusing to work with someone because they are black, or white for example. How is it right for a child to think it is okay to shun people because they are black, where on earth did he learn this is more the point, because yes kids tease each other, but over skin colour? Racism is something taught, yet Victor advocates that children should be allowed to be racist and that they can continue to grow up in life thinking racism is okay.


Holy crap on a cracker is all I can say  

didge - do you choose who your friends are?

I won't ask why or how - that's your choice.

End of story.

I get on with most people in real life Andy, because I take the good with the bad, even someone like you, I would, because I hope to see the better come out of people, I would not choose my friendship based off skin colour, ethnicity etc, but what a person is like as an individual, I even know some racists in real life also, they have their views and wish to see them change them, but they are also friends.
All people have good and bad in them, though the levels are different.

Hope that helps, but people should not select friendship based off poor stereotypes, but who a person thmselves are

Didge wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:


didge - do you choose who your friends are?

I won't ask why or how - that's your choice.

End of story.

I get on with most people in real life Andy, because I take the good with the bad, even someone like you, I would, because I hope to see the better come out of people, I would not choose my friendship based off skin colour, ethnicity etc, but what a person is like as an individual, I even know some racists in real life also, they have their views and wish to see them change them, but they are also friends.
All people have good and bad in them, though the levels are different.

Hope that helps, but people should not select friendship based off poor stereotypes, but who a person thmselves are

That's nice didge.

You see - it's easy to be nice to people like i just was with you - now let others make their own decisions, choose their own friends and take their own path in life.

BigAndy9 wrote:

Didge wrote:


I get on with most people in real life Andy, because I take the good with the bad, even someone like you, I would, because I hope to see the better come out of people, I would not choose my friendship based off skin colour, ethnicity etc, but what a person is like as an individual, I even know some racists in real life also, they have their views and wish to see them change them, but they are also friends.
All people have good and bad in them, though the levels are different.

Hope that helps, but people should not select friendship based off poor stereotypes, but who a person thmselves are

That's nice didge.

You see - it's easy to be nice to people like i just was with you - now let others make their own decisions, choose their own friends and take their own path in life.

Interesting as people have always held their decisions Andy and have never changed anyones, as nobody has rarely changed others, showing that really was again a very absurd view point. This is a debate forum where view points differ, I suggest you get used to that, but choosing to shun people based off prejudice views like skin colour or homosexuality is wrong and will condemn it, as it is my right to do so.
Thus respect my decision to do so.

Again a child should be taught that racism is wrong, as it is wrong both morally and biologically, get used to the fact it should be taught as wrong

Didge wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:


That's nice didge.

You see - it's easy to be nice to people like i just was with you - now let others make their own decisions, choose their own friends and take their own path in life.

Interesting as people have always held their decisions Andy and have never changed anyones, as nobody has rarely changed others, showing that really was again a very absurd view point. This is a debate forum where view points differ, I suggest you get used to that, but choosing to shun people based off prejudice views like skin colour or homosexuality is wrong and will condemn it, as it is my right to do so.
Thus respect my decision to do so.

Again a child should be taught that racism is wrong, as it is wrong both morally and biologically, get used to the fact it should be taught as wrong  

And that's exactly what i'm trying to tell you, because you certainly don't understand that.

BigAndy9 wrote:

Didge wrote:


Interesting as people have always held their decisions Andy and have never changed anyones, as nobody has rarely changed others, showing that really was again a very absurd view point. This is a debate forum where view points differ, I suggest you get used to that, but choosing to shun people based off prejudice views like skin colour or homosexuality is wrong and will condemn it, as it is my right to do so.
Thus respect my decision to do so.

Again a child should be taught that racism is wrong, as it is wrong both morally and biologically, get used to the fact it should be taught as wrong  

And that's exactly what i'm trying to tell you, because you certainly don't understand that.

I do more than you do Andy, you just do not like your points ridiculed, sorry that is part of forum life, especially when some of them are poor to say the least, I suggest you get used to that and it has never made you change your views or many others either, as people enjoy the debate.
Anyway am getting so bored of your posts of late, they seem bitter and as if you have a grudge, move on man, I have nothing against you I just like taking the piss out of you at times

 ::D:: 

FluffyBunny wrote:

Shady wrote:
Good evening Fluffy.
But please spare a thought for their non Muslims customers who may not want to eat halal prepared food.
Don't you want to know what you are eating?

Good Evening
If you don't want to eat there,you can take your custom elsewhere,that's the point surely.
Non Muslims can eat Halal prepared food aswell,can't they?  

That is what they should have said to the muslems, and the muslems can eat 'the food of the people of the book' as stated in their guide book, so the point still stands, why then change for the minority?



And this includes the removal of ham and bacon.

Didge wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:

didge ALSO in that or another similar thread implied that owners who had a  suffering, terminally sick animal euthanised were inhumane...because we cant ask the animal, i.e give it a choice. So I can only presume that he is content to "let nature take its course" and sit there whilst the poor animal ends its days writhing in pain.
but thats didge...only he could justify vile cruelty on the back of uneducated nonsense....

Irony at its best. This coming from a man who likes to kill animals for sport.
Again I would not kill an animal even if dying, Joy understood this but you did not, yet you are happy to kill a healthy animal for pleasure or some pathetic excuse where humans have corrupted the animal populations and then advocate killing them, because they created the situation in the first place, please stop embarrassing yourself Victor, your view to claiming humane treatment is the most shocking sham of them all  

You then have the cheek to moan about halal.


Epic fail

No,this is wrong.

Are you seriously suggesting that you think it is irrelevant that an animal is killed inhumanely just because it is going to be slaughtered anyway?

With all due respect I consider that a rather odd opinion.To me the suffering of the animal is very relevant.

And yes I am a meat eater(although I don't tend to eat much I'm not a veggie either),I don't see why I'm a hypocrite for wanting these animals to have a painless death.

FluffyBunny wrote:

Didge wrote:


Irony at its best. This coming from a man who likes to kill animals for sport.
Again I would not kill an animal even if dying, Joy understood this but you did not, yet you are happy to kill a healthy animal for pleasure or some pathetic excuse where humans have corrupted the animal populations and then advocate killing them, because they created the situation in the first place, please stop embarrassing yourself Victor, your view to claiming humane treatment is the most shocking sham of them all  

You then have the cheek to moan about halal.


Epic fail

No,this is wrong.

Are you seriously suggesting that you think it is irrelevant that an  animal is killed inhumanely just because it is going to be slaughtered anyway?

With all due respect I consider that a rather odd opinion.To me the suffering of the animal is very relevant.

And yes I am a meat eater(although I don't tend to eat much I'm not a veggie either),I don't see why I'm a hypocrite for wanting these animals to have a painless death.

You're absolutely spot on of course Fluffy.

We bend over backwards for humans who kill children, we should do even more for innocent animals, and over hundreds of years we, the entire Western world have decided upon what we believe is the most humane way - we enforced it for many years, why not now?

Just another thing which



"you must question"

FluffyBunny wrote:

Didge wrote:


Irony at its best. This coming from a man who likes to kill animals for sport.
Again I would not kill an animal even if dying, Joy understood this but you did not, yet you are happy to kill a healthy animal for pleasure or some pathetic excuse where humans have corrupted the animal populations and then advocate killing them, because they created the situation in the first place, please stop embarrassing yourself Victor, your view to claiming humane treatment is the most shocking sham of them all  

You then have the cheek to moan about halal.


Epic fail

No,this is wrong.

Are you seriously suggesting that you think it is irrelevant that an  animal is killed inhumanely just because it is going to be slaughtered anyway?

With all due respect I consider that a rather odd opinion.To me the suffering of the animal is very relevant.

And yes I am a meat eater(although I don't tend to eat much I'm not a veggie either),I don't see why I'm a hypocrite for wanting these animals to have a painless death.

Good afternoon Fluffy.

Good post & I agree with you.

You've also got to remember that Didge is an ill man & he will contradict himself on a regular basis.

Tommy Monk wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:
Good Evening
If you don't want to eat there,you can take your custom elsewhere,that's the point surely.
Non Muslims can eat Halal prepared food aswell,can't they?  

That is what they should have said to the muslems, and the muslems can eat 'the food of the people of the book' as stated in their guide book, so the point still stands, why then change for the minority?



And this includes the removal of ham and bacon.

For me personally the barbaric practice of Halal has overtaken the menu at Subway but I will concede I thought the best solution would be to offer halal meat AND bacon?I don't intend to wade through the thread but I assume Halal meat can't come into contact with normal meat or some such balls.

I don't have a problem with Subway changing their menu and I don't think they are catering to the minority,they can't be ,it doesn't make good business sense.If they are catering to a minority,then they will be doing so expecting a big drop in profits,which makes little sense to me,I can only assume they were missing out on alot of Muslim custom hence the changes they have implemented and feel it will be worth it in the long run.

i am just very annoyed about a practice that dictates animal cruelty to be necessary.Yes Subway are stunning the animals first but this does not normally happen in Halal slaughter.

Shady wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:

No,this is wrong.

Are you seriously suggesting that you think it is irrelevant that an  animal is killed inhumanely just because it is going to be slaughtered anyway?

With all due respect I consider that a rather odd opinion.To me the suffering of the animal is very relevant.

And yes I am a meat eater(although I don't tend to eat much I'm not a veggie either),I don't see why I'm a hypocrite for wanting these animals to have a painless death.

Good afternoon Fluffy.

Good post & I agree with you.

You've also got to remember that Didge is an ill man & he will contradict himself on a regular basis.

I have contradicted myself big time on this thread and that is out of my own ignorance for not knowing what Halal slaughter entailed.

I'm sorry but it's outrageous.

FluffyBunny wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:



That is what they should have said to the muslems, and the muslems can eat 'the food of the people of the book' as stated in their guide book, so the point still stands, why then change for the minority?



And this includes the removal of ham and bacon.

For me personally the barbaric practice of Halal has overtaken the menu at Subway but I will concede I thought the best solution would be to offer halal meat AND bacon?I don't intend to wade through the thread but I assume Halal meat can't come into contact with normal meat or some such balls.

I don't have a problem with Subway changing their menu and I don't think they are catering to the minority,they can't be ,it doesn't make good business sense.If they are catering to a minority,then they will be doing so expecting a big drop in profits,which makes little sense to me,I can only assume they were missing out on alot of Muslim custom hence the changes they have implemented and feel it will be worth it in the long run.

i am just very annoyed about a practice that dictates animal cruelty to be necessary.Yes Subway are stunning the animals first but this does not normally happen in Halal slaughter.

Spot on again.

The menu was fine before - as more and more Muslims came in they could have put up another menu entitled "halal menu".

Problem solved?

FluffyBunny wrote:

Shady wrote:

Good afternoon Fluffy.

Good post & I agree with you.

You've also got to remember that Didge is an ill man & he will contradict himself on a regular basis.

I have contradicted myself big time on this thread and that is out of my own ignorance for not knowing what  Halal slaughter entailed.

I'm sorry but it's outrageous.

No problem & that's why I said to you in an ealier thread that I'd like the choice of knowing if my meat is halal or not.

Sometime ago I watched a Youtube video of a cow & chickens being slaughtered according to halal beliefs & I had to turn it off....Not a pretty or civilised sight.

They are removing choice for the non muslem people who may want to eat there, and enforcing the halal onto all against their wishes or more likely against their knowledge.
I know about halal, and I know muslems can eat non halal if that is what is offered, so why change at all just to please a minority and risk alienating the majority?

FluffyBunny wrote:

Shady wrote:

Good afternoon Fluffy.

Good post & I agree with you.

You've also got to remember that Didge is an ill man & he will contradict himself on a regular basis.

I have contradicted myself big time on this thread and that is out of my own ignorance for not knowing what  Halal slaughter entailed.

I'm sorry but it's outrageous.

It's a horrific thing to watch Fluffy, but i do urge you to watch it just once:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=545_1345800806

BigAndy9 wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:

For me personally the barbaric practice of Halal has overtaken the menu at Subway but I will concede I thought the best solution would be to offer halal meat AND bacon?I don't intend to wade through the thread but I assume Halal meat can't come into contact with normal meat or some such balls.

I don't have a problem with Subway changing their menu and I don't think they are catering to the minority,they can't be ,it doesn't make good business sense.If they are catering to a minority,then they will be doing so expecting a big drop in profits,which makes little sense to me,I can only assume they were missing out on alot of Muslim custom hence the changes they have implemented and feel it will be worth it in the long run.

i am just very annoyed about a practice that dictates animal cruelty to be necessary.Yes Subway are stunning the animals first but this does not normally happen in Halal slaughter.

Spot on again.

The menu was fine before - as more and more Muslims came in they could have put up another menu entitled "halal menu".

Problem solved?

Well yes,I would have thought so   

BigAndy9 wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:

I have contradicted myself big time on this thread and that is out of my own ignorance for not knowing what  Halal slaughter entailed.

I'm sorry but it's outrageous.

It's a horrific thing to watch Fluffy, but i do urge you to watch it just once:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=545_1345800806

I saw enough to get rather emotional.

Its sick and they need their heads testing.

FluffyBunny wrote:

Didge wrote:


Irony at its best. This coming from a man who likes to kill animals for sport.
Again I would not kill an animal even if dying, Joy understood this but you did not, yet you are happy to kill a healthy animal for pleasure or some pathetic excuse where humans have corrupted the animal populations and then advocate killing them, because they created the situation in the first place, please stop embarrassing yourself Victor, your view to claiming humane treatment is the most shocking sham of them all  

You then have the cheek to moan about halal.


Epic fail

No,this is wrong.

Are you seriously suggesting that you think it is irrelevant that an  animal is killed inhumanely just because it is going to be slaughtered anyway?

With all due respect I consider that a rather odd opinion.To me the suffering of the animal is very relevant.

And yes I am a meat eater(although I don't tend to eat much I'm not a veggie either),I don't see why I'm a hypocrite for wanting these animals to have a painless death.

Completely hypocritical if you eat meat and wear make up, because all make up has ingredients that are tested on animals fluffly.
The animal is bred for one purpose to be slaughtered and eaten, whether you stun or not both have their throats slit and people are bemoaning how if it suffers when I am sure every animal would like to live justas you would, tell me otherwise?
The fact is my point is zapping electricity into the brain is not pleasant either and in many cases not done properly, you need to research more fluffy or the fact again if you eat meat you cease to have any justification over any humane treatment, because you wish the animal to lose its right to exist, just so it can be used to be made into a steak

Didge wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:

No,this is wrong.

Are you seriously suggesting that you think it is irrelevant that an  animal is killed inhumanely just because it is going to be slaughtered anyway?

With all due respect I consider that a rather odd opinion.To me the suffering of the animal is very relevant.

And yes I am a meat eater(although I don't tend to eat much I'm not a veggie either),I don't see why I'm a hypocrite for wanting these animals to have a painless death.

Completely hypocritical if you eat meat and wear make up, because all make up has ingredients that are tested on animals fluffly.
The animal is bred for one purpose to be slaughtered and eaten, whether you stun or not both have their throats slit and people are bemoaning how if it suffers when I am sure every animal would like to live justas you would, tell me otherwise?
The fact is my point is zapping electricity into the brain is not pleasant either and in many cases not done properly, you need to research more fluffy or the fact again if you eat meat you cease to have any justification over any humane treatment, because you wish the animal to lose its right to exist, just so it can be used to be made into a steak    

I could live quite happily as a veggie.I don't eat much meat,I do however pile on a fair bit of make up so maybe I am a hypocrite.Fine.

The rest of your argument is tosh.These animals are going to be slaughtered anyway,that's simply the way it is as you yourself have stated but it is very important that their passing is pain free,If you are honestly saying that because they are going to die anyway they might aswell experience a hideous and painful death please have a word with yourself.

There is no logic to your argument at all.

I wouldn't mind being a veggie but many people love their meat and therefore animals will continue to be slaughtered.this is something we cannot change.

What we CAN ensure is that their death is pain free and for you to say it doesn't matter one way or the other,where is your compassion?Maybe we are a bunch of animal killing hypocrites,even so that's not the animals fault is it?? The animal didn't make the choice to die so why punish the animal by forcing it to have a painful death?

Didge wrote:

MANIPULATIVE DIDGE!

The stunning method,when used accurately,is the closest to feeling no pain as possible.
The employee in this video is not stunning the animals correctly and I'm sure he was sacked as a result.

FluffyBunny wrote:

Didge wrote:


Completely hypocritical if you eat meat and wear make up, because all make up has ingredients that are tested on animals fluffly.
The animal is bred for one purpose to be slaughtered and eaten, whether you stun or not both have their throats slit and people are bemoaning how if it suffers when I am sure every animal would like to live justas you would, tell me otherwise?
The fact is my point is zapping electricity into the brain is not pleasant either and in many cases not done properly, you need to research more fluffy or the fact again if you eat meat you cease to have any justification over any humane treatment, because you wish the animal to lose its right to exist, just so it can be used to be made into a steak    

I could live quite happily as a veggie.I don't eat much meat,I do however pile on a fair bit of make up so maybe I am a hypocrite.Fine.

The rest of your argument is tosh.These animals are going to be slaughtered anyway,that's simply the way it is as you yourself have stated but it is very important that their passing is pain free,If you are honestly saying that because they are going to die anyway they might aswell experience a hideous and painful death please have a word with yourself.

There is no logic to your argument at all.

I wouldn't mind being a veggie but many people love their meat and therefore animals will continue to be slaughtered.this is something we cannot change.

What we CAN ensure is that their death is pain free and for you to say it doesn't matter one way or the other,where is your compassion?Maybe we are a bunch of animal killing hypocrites,even so that's not the animals fault is it?? The animal didn't make the choice to die so why punish the animal by forcing it to have a painful death?

There is plenty of logic, if you really care about animals, you would not eat them as you do not need to eat them and as seen stunning is not pain free either yet you advocate have an animals brained stunned with electricity, so have you had electricity zapped into your brain Fluffy and can tell me it is pain free?

Your last point is apt, the animal did not choose to die, and yet we kill it for our own needs, in fact we manufacture animals for our own needs, how is that quality of life?

I know true people who care about animals (one of the reasons I hold Tess in high regard she is not hypocritical in regards to her love of animals) and some people in the world have to kill animals to survive, I have no issue with that, but both methods slit the throat here in the UK. Some here advocate the sport of killing animals, that is the worst to then moan about halal. To me the most humane way would be an injection, yet we offer this to criminals with the death penalty in America (which is normally humane) and not animals, why?  

You cannot advocate the slaughter of animals and then claim humane treatment, it is a contradiction

Didge wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:

I could live quite happily as a veggie.I don't eat much meat,I do however pile on a fair bit of make up so maybe I am a hypocrite.Fine.

The rest of your argument is tosh.These animals are going to be slaughtered anyway,that's simply the way it is as you yourself have stated but it is very important that their passing is pain free,If you are honestly saying that because they are going to die anyway they might aswell experience a hideous and painful death please have a word with yourself.

There is no logic to your argument at all.

I wouldn't mind being a veggie but many people love their meat and therefore animals will continue to be slaughtered.this is something we cannot change.

What we CAN ensure is that their death is pain free and for you to say it doesn't matter one way or the other,where is your compassion?Maybe we are a bunch of animal killing hypocrites,even so that's not the animals fault is it?? The animal didn't make the choice to die so why punish the animal by forcing it to have a painful death?

There is plenty of logic, if you really care about animals, you would not eat them as you do not need to eat them and as seen stunning is not pain free either yet you advocate have an animals brained stunned with electricity, so have you had electricity zapped into your brain Fluffy and can tell me it is pain free?

Your last point is apt, the animal did not choose to die, and yet we kill it for our own needs, in fact we manufacture animals for our own needs, how is that quality of life?

I know true people who care about animals (one of the reasons I hold Tess in high regard she is not hypocritical in regards to her love of animals) and some people in the world have to kill animals to survive, I have no issue with that, but both methods slit the throat here in the UK. Some here advocate the sport of killing animals, that is the worst to then moan about halal. To me the most humane way would be an injection, yet we offer this to criminals with the death penalty in America (which is normally humane) and not animals, why?  

You cannot advocate the slaughter of animals and then claim humane treatment, it is a contradiction

Try not to focus on making things personal and answer the actual pertinent questions.

The animal is going to die anyway,that is the reality of the situation.I could become a veggie tomorrow (If i noticed as I go for long spells without eating meat anyway) and that wouldn't affect what would happen to the animals in question.

They are going to die anyway,don't you want their death to be as pain free as possible?Just answer that one question.

If injections are truthfully a preferable method then I have no idea why it isn't used.

Didge wrote:1. Humane slaughter relies on the myth that animals do not have an interest in staying alive.
In other words, the assumption is that animals are not conscious or intelligent enough to understand the value of their own lives. Therefore, to the proponents of humane slaughter, our moral obligation to animals is simply to minimize the pain and suffering associated with ending their lives. However, the best empirical research as well as simple observation clearly demonstrates that the opposite is true. Indeed, animals will fight for their lives and for the lives of their offspring, and even for the lives of members of their extended social group, as vociferously as we would fight for our own lives.
2. Humane slaughter uses the practices of factory farming and industrial slaughterhouses as a moral baseline, that is, the most egregious forms of animal exploitation imaginable.
By measuring against the “worst case scenario,” anything looks better. In this case better does not necessarily mean “humane.” Far from it. Why measure against the worst case scenario? If those in the business of humane animal agriculture had a genuine interest in understanding what is “humane,” they would be measuring the Webster dictionary definition of “humane” against what we know about animal consciousness as a means to better determine the circumstances that would truly constitute a humane animal-human relationship. But such an analysis would render the very commodification of animals itself as “inhumane” since commercial farming requires that even the most basic animal interests must be denied. (1)
3. The Intention Itself is not humane.
The intention of artificially breeding an animal into existence for the sole purpose of raising him to market weight to then slaughter him in his infancy or adolescence and profit from products procured from his flesh or bodily secretions (that we do not require for health) (2), in no way constitutes a humane intention, let alone a humane act.



- See more at: http://freefromharm.org/animal-products-and-ethics/12-reasons-why-i-dont-believe-in-humane-slaughter/#sthash.N7DOzVzc.dpuf

Point one is way off the mark,of course we know animals want to stay alive,to suggest otherwise is absurd.But they wouldn't be alive in the first place they not been bred to be slaughtered..is this not also true ?

Whether you agree with animals being killed to be eaten or not,the fact remains our personal views will not alter it happening,it's a bit irrelevant to the point actually.