You Must Question

FluffyBunny wrote:

Didge wrote:



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.

Joy Division wrote:I think I get what your saying Didge,,,not that you condone any animal slaughter, in fact your totally opposed to it, but you think, well, one method of killing is as bad as the other, and as you have no say in wether these animals live or die, you think....

Well what can I do? They are going to die by one of the horrible methods, and I wouldn't like to choose any of those methods for them.

FluffyBunny wrote:

Joy Division wrote:I think I get what your saying Didge,,,not that you condone any animal slaughter, in fact your totally opposed to it, but you think, well, one method of killing is as bad as the other, and as you have no say in wether these animals live or die, you think....

Well what can I do? They are going to die by one of the horrible methods, and I wouldn't like to choose any of those methods for them.

But one method clearly ISN'T as bad as the other JD!

I wouldn't like to choose any of these methods either but the Halal is by far the most barbaric and should be avoided at all costs.

Didge wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:

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.

Sorry Fluffy I am not being personal but showing your view points contradict as seen, so please do not make things up that is poor.

You claim the animal is going to die anyway, so are humans going to die anyway, does that mean using your logic it is okay to murder someone now then?

Of course not, an animal has a right to live just as we do, so using the point we are going to butcher it to feed ourselves to then claim how humane its method is of killing it is yet again a complete contradiction, the point you are missing at every turn, I know this to be true as nobody even Victor could not argue against the moral view point.

Injections would be far more expensive, so it is cost that is preventing humane treatment, not the view to use humane treatment, but again to advocate killing animals just to eat to then claim how it is done humanely is in itself a contradiction, because not only does the animal have no say in whether it wants to live when all species wants to live, but you deny this animal the choice

Again it is a hypocritical view point to claim humane treatment to animals when you raise them to be slaughtered, it shows the value of the animal has no purpose except for the human and not the animal itself

Didge wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:

But one method clearly ISN'T as bad as the other JD!

I wouldn't like to choose any of these methods either but the Halal is by far the most barbaric and should be avoided at all costs.

Sorry Fluffy, it is a contradiction argument if you eat meat, because you negate the right of the animal to exist in the first place and all this is done is to satisfy the human need and not the animals.
You see the question here is not about whether and how the animal should die, but whether it should be able to live

FluffyBunny wrote:

Didge wrote:


Sorry Fluffy, it is a contradiction argument if you eat meat, because you negate the right of the animal to exist in the first place and all this is done is to satisfy the human need and not the animals.
You see the question here is not about whether and how the animal should die, but whether it should be able to live

That's because you have made it the question.These animals are bred to be slaughtered therefore they wouldn't be alive in the first place if they were not going to be killed.
Ergo rendering your points moot.

Joy Division wrote:

Didge wrote:



Sorry Fluffy I am not being personal but showing your view points contradict as seen, so please do not make things up that is poor.

You claim the animal is going to die anyway, so are humans going to die anyway, does that mean using your logic it is okay to murder someone now then?

Of course not, an animal has a right to live just as we do, so using the point we are going to butcher it to feed ourselves to then claim how humane its method is of killing it is yet again a complete contradiction, the point you are missing at every turn, I know this to be true as nobody even Victor could not argue against the moral view point.

Injections would be far more expensive, so it is cost that is preventing humane treatment, not the view to use humane treatment, but again to advocate killing animals just to eat to then claim how it is done humanely is in itself a contradiction, because not only does the animal have no say in whether it wants to live when all species wants to live, but you deny this animal the choice

Again it is a hypocritical view point to claim humane treatment to animals when you raise them to be slaughtered, it shows the value of the animal has no purpose except for the human and not the animal itself

That's a really good post Didge

..and your damn right , it would be damn right expensive to kill animals of with drugs, I was going to mention this earlier, this would be a far kinder method, a quick injection, but that would never happen on mass scale, or probably at all.


The most cost effective slaughter will always take place , way above and beyond the welfare of the animals.

FluffyBunny wrote:

Joy Division wrote:I think I get what your saying Didge,,,not that you condone any animal slaughter, in fact your totally opposed to it, but you think, well, one method of killing is as bad as the other, and as you have no say in wether these animals live or die, you think....

Well what can I do? They are going to die by one of the horrible methods, and I wouldn't like to choose any of those methods for them.

But one method clearly ISN'T as bad as the other JD!

I wouldn't like to choose any of these methods either but the Halal is by far the most barbaric and should be avoided at all costs.

Didge wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


That's a really good post Didge

..and your damn right , it would be damn right expensive to kill animals of with drugs, I was going to mention this earlier, this would be a far kinder method, a quick injection, but that would never happen on mass scale, or probably at all.


The most cost effective slaughter will always take place , way above and beyond the welfare of the animals.

Exactly Joy, the claim to wanting humane treatment is in all affects a sham, because there are far more humane methods, but the cost outweighs the animals welfare or any humane rights.
To me though there is no argument to claim humane treatment to animals when they are being raised for the sole purpose of humans to eat, because the higher moral argument would be not to eat them and allow them to exist in the first place, because we do not need to eat them

Joy Division wrote:

Didge wrote:



Exactly Joy, the claim to wanting humane treatment is in all affects a sham, because there are far more humane methods, but the cost outweighs the animals welfare or any humane rights.
To me though there is no argument to claim humane treatment to animals when they are being raised for the sole purpose of humans to eat, because the higher moral argument would be not to eat them and allow them to exist in the first place, because we do not need to eat them

Your right Didge, it's double standards of the worst kind, and the like of Tesco etc advertising about animal welfare being adhered to...rubbish!!

I saw an undercover thing on tell about animal welfare, and they were rammed into that lorry, some cows were kicked and lambs thrown hard Into the lorry, what a shame, I felt like greeting

Really sad Didge.

It is a sham, a huge one indeed.

Joy Division wrote:

Didge wrote:



Exactly Joy, the claim to wanting humane treatment is in all affects a sham, because there are far more humane methods, but the cost outweighs the animals welfare or any humane rights.
To me though there is no argument to claim humane treatment to animals when they are being raised for the sole purpose of humans to eat, because the higher moral argument would be not to eat them and allow them to exist in the first place, because we do not need to eat them

Your right Didge, it's double standards of the worst kind, and the like of Tesco etc advertising about animal welfare being adhered to...rubbish!!

I saw an undercover thing on tell about animal welfare, and they were rammed into that lorry, some cows were kicked and lambs thrown hard Into the lorry, what a shame, I felt like greeting

Really sad Didge.

It is a sham, a huge one indeed.

FluffyBunny wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


Your right Didge, it's double standards of the worst kind, and the like of Tesco etc advertising about animal welfare being adhered to...rubbish!!

I saw an undercover thing on tell about animal welfare, and they were rammed into that lorry, some cows were kicked and lambs thrown hard Into the lorry, what a shame, I felt like greeting

Really sad Didge.

It is a sham, a huge one indeed.

Are you a veggie then JD?

Didge wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:

That's because you have made it the question.These animals are bred to be slaughtered therefore they wouldn't be alive in the first place if they were not going to be killed.
Ergo rendering your points moot.

Yes but is it right that they are bred to be slaughtered in the first place?
Lets put this into perspective for you shall we, what if humans were bred for the sole purpose of organ donation, to then be killed to offer up their organs, would you claim this was humane?

harrymuffin wrote:I spoke to my OH about this and we will no longer be subway customers.  

We're both huge animal lovers and cannot abide animals being slaughtered in such an inhumane way.

Yes, we both eat meat,  there is a humane way to slaughter and an inhumane way.   We choose the first.

Is this why,  extremists lop off the heads of infidels?  Because they're no more than an animal in their eyes?

I do know that the Muslims don't like dogs,  and see them as filthy animals.  I read something a year or two ago,  about Muslims killing neighbours family pets (dogs).  I for one just don't understand it.

Didge wrote:

harrymuffin wrote:I spoke to my OH about this and we will no longer be subway customers.  

We're both huge animal lovers and cannot abide animals being slaughtered in such an inhumane way.

Yes, we both eat meat,  there is a humane way to slaughter and an inhumane way.   We choose the first.

Is this why,  extremists lop off the heads of infidels?  Because they're no more than an animal in their eyes?

I do know that the Muslims don't like dogs,  and see them as filthy animals.  I read something a year or two ago,  about Muslims killing neighbours family pets (dogs).  I for one just don't understand it.

But you have no problem with animals being slaughtered though to feed you and being manufactured to be slaughtered, how exactly is that being humane to animals.
Like I said would you advocate farming humans for organ donation?
Sorry but I find the view to love animals and then claim it is okay to eat meat a complete contradiction, that is why I am hypocritical eating meat and cannot truly claim to love animals, I do love them, but eat meat negating my own view on loving them

FluffyBunny wrote:

Didge wrote:



Yes but is it right that they are bred to be slaughtered in the first place?
Lets put this into perspective for you shall we, what if humans were bred for the sole purpose of organ donation, to then be killed to offer up their organs, would you claim this was humane?

I don't understand the point of constructing fantasy scenarios.

It doesn't matter what your view is on the slaughter of animals,or mine,or my Great Aunt Hilda's,because it is going to happen regardless of whether we personally disagree with it or not.

Therefore the best we can hope to do is be as humane in the treatment of these animals as we can possibly be.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Why does UKIP support fox hunts if it's so concerned about animals suffering?

FluffyBunny wrote:

Didge wrote:



But you have no problem with animals being slaughtered though to feed you and being manufactured to be slaughtered, how exactly is that being humane to animals.
Like I said would you advocate farming humans for organ donation?
Sorry but I find the view to love animals and then claim it is okay to eat meat a complete contradiction, that is why I am hypocritical eating meat and cannot truly claim to love animals, I do love them, but eat meat negating my own view on loving them

You're a meat eater,after all that   
How can you take the Holier than Thou attitude if you eat meat,its like I have entered a parallel universe ...  

FluffyBunny wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Why does UKIP support fox hunts if it's so concerned about animals suffering?

If they do advocate fox hunting then they are not concerned in my view.

Didge wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:

I don't understand the point of constructing fantasy scenarios.

It doesn't matter what your view is on the slaughter of animals,or mine,or my Great Aunt Hilda's,because it is going to happen regardless of whether we personally disagree with it or not.

Therefore the best we can hope to do is be as humane in the treatment of these animals as we can possibly be.

Its called putting things into perspective and to argue it is going to happen makes it okay is a false argument, you are thus saying because we do something makes it okay, that is not valid a view point because as seen we do not need to do so and in fact manipulate animal populations just so we can slaughter them to eat Fluffy
Again even if we were to use your view point on the humane way to slaughter an animal, that would be injections and again it is not used, because cost outweighs the humane treatment of animals, so on each factor it places the view on humane treatment as a contradiction, because that is the most humane method to kill an animal is it not?

Didge wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:

You're a meat eater,after all that   
How can you take the Holier than Thou attitude if you eat meat,its like I have entered a parallel universe ...  

Easy, I do not claim to say I am a true animal lover, as if I did, I would not eat meat, hence I admit being hypocritical and have stated all along I am.

My points though still stand

 ::D::

FluffyBunny wrote:

Didge wrote:



Its called putting things into perspective and to argue it is going to happen makes it okay is a false argument, you are thus saying because we do something makes it okay, that is not valid a view point because as seen we do not need to do so and in fact manipulate animal populations just so we can slaughter them to eat Fluffy
Again even if we were to use your view point on the humane way to slaughter an animal, that would be injections and again it is not used, because cost outweighs the humane treatment of animals, so on each factor it places the view on humane treatment as a contradiction, because that is the most humane method to kill an animal is it not?

Well I would use injections as that is the most humane way of doing this.However as with everything in this world cost is all that seemingly matters.

And no,I am not saying because something is done makes it ok,quite the opposite so stop putting words in my mouth.

FluffyBunny wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Why does UKIP support fox hunts if it's so concerned about animals suffering?

If they do advocate fox hunting then they are not concerned in my view.

FluffyBunny wrote:

Didge wrote:



Easy, I do not claim to say I am a true animal lover, as if I did, I would not eat meat, hence I admit being hypocritical and have stated all along I am.

My points though still stand

 ::D::

I actually think you're take on this is quite bonkers you being a meat eater aside. ::resmahauth:: 

harrymuffin wrote:Do you wear UGG boots?  Anyone here?  If so,  I can provide a horrific article for you to read.  Do you wear any type of leather?  Any leather products in your home?

We do love animals,  we eat steak, mince, bacon, pork chops.  OH eats lamb,  I don't like it.

We wouldn't eat dog because we have those as pets.  We don't have a cow lounging on the floor in our living room.  

harrymuffin wrote:I don't hate Muslims.  I hate extremists.  I do hate people that move into a country and expect things to be changed to accommodate them.  

Would you dare to go to the home of a friends' friend and tell them how to eat in their home,  what to serve in their home,  what channel to watch on their telly?

If I moved to another country,  I'd not expect them to accommodate me.   I've moved there,  I need to respect their customs, their ancestry, learn their language.  

It's all about respecting the country and the people that have allowed you to live there.

Didge wrote:

harrymuffin wrote:I don't hate Muslims.  I hate extremists.  I do hate people that move into a country and expect things to be changed to accommodate them.  

Would you dare to go to the home of a friends' friend and tell them how to eat in their home,  what to serve in their home,  what channel to watch on their telly?

If I moved to another country,  I'd not expect them to accommodate me.   I've moved there,  I need to respect their customs, their ancestry, learn their language.  

It's all about respecting the country and the people that have allowed you to live there.

Respecting the country?


We have had Muslims here for over 300 years and Jews far longer, why is it now only a problem with halal and kosher, when they have been here generations?
So the point on moving here is a tad redundant when many have been here practicing this method for so long, as it was never an issue before? 
Again the rise of people being against Halal (you never here kosher mentioned much though) has risen with the increasing dislike of Muslims, not because of the method itself, but since the rise of Islamic extremism for most who argue this, though not all.
So if people were respecting this for so long and had no issue, why now?
Respecting the nation does not come into it as well from the view point we actually import halal and again most of that is actually stunned as well

Didge wrote:On a side note, I am glad to see you are back debating harrymuffin, as stated before I have said you add to this forum, am very sure I know who you are and truly glad you are back debating here.

 ::D::

harrymuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:



Respecting the country?


We have had Muslims here for over 300 years and Jews far longer, why is it now only a problem with halal and kosher, when they have been here generations?
So the point on moving here is a tad redundant when many have been here practicing this method for so long, as it was never an issue before? 
Again the rise of people being against Halal (you never here kosher mentioned much though) has risen with the increasing dislike of Muslims, not because of the method itself, but since the rise of Islamic extremism for most who argue this, though not all.
So if people were respecting this for so long and had no issue, why now?
Respecting the nation does not come into it as well from the view point we actually import halal and again most of that is actually stunned as well

I've given my opinion on this matter,  nothing you say or anyone else says, will change our minds.  Subway cannot change our minds.

We won't eat there again,  they've lost 2 customers.    My point is,  if you're going to move into a country,  then respect that country.  Don't try to change the ways of that country.  DO learn the language of that country.  

Since they have been there 300 years,  why weren't we hearing of these changes 40 or 50 years ago?

FluffyBunny wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


Your right Didge, it's double standards of the worst kind, and the like of Tesco etc advertising about animal welfare being adhered to...rubbish!!

I saw an undercover thing on tell about animal welfare, and they were rammed into that lorry, some cows were kicked and lambs thrown hard Into the lorry, what a shame, I felt like greeting

Really sad Didge.

It is a sham, a huge one indeed.

Are you a veggie then JD?

Shady wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:

Are you a veggie then JD?

More like a Druggie.

victorisnotamused wrote:Morals..... :aspffftas:  here we have didge trying to defend the indefensible from some "moral high point" and then destroys himself by showing that he lacks any morals....
This coming from a person that advocates killing animals for sport
Epic fail

lets look at this...

I can freely admit that there could, just possibly be a moral argument about whether we should eat meat, based on the entirely theoretical argument that we can, just about, get by on a purely vegetarian diet (but thats it...just about get by). It is NOT healthy, (just beacuse a very few seem to do better doesnt make a valid argument...some people have medical conditions which are made worse by meat products....unfortunately they are NOT representative of humanity as a whole...they are, in reality abberations, with just that ...medical conditions)
It IS very expensive
it IS very inefficient in land use, fuel use, chemical use
It WOULD mean a reduction in human population to 10% of its present level, with no further growth.
Does it mean a reduction in the human population?
That does not prove anything at all, we just do not utilise all farming methods for food, far from it as many are used for biofuels, so there goes that argument down  the toilet very easily so

we are by nature predators and omnivores...biologically designed to eat meat as well as vegetation.
No we are not that is incorrect, as part of the ape family we are herbivores, so that is a load of bollocks also

now....IF we ARE going to kill our food animals (and we are...) then that moral argument goes out of the window....even if it may be the "higher moral priority" and we are left with the lesser but still overiding moral concern that IF we are going to kill then it should be by the most humane method possible.
But there is no moral argument to kill animals to eat meat because we do not need to eat meat and we can change our production of foods to accommodate this, we also have untold seaweed, best you start looking for a more valid argument

fluffy mentioned drugs....cant be done because the drugs remain in the meat.....
Yes drugs can be used to take out animals, because are you now saying the natives of South america do not use Curare  to paralyze animals which do not affect eating the animal, so effective we now use this in medicine?
Sorry I am easily able to show up your poor arguments

didge is waffling in an attempt by some perverse argument to justify the unjustifiable, and it IS perverse because in blunt terms his arguments are all theory and no trousers.....
Babble answer and now not even presenting an argument and as seen you advocate killing animals for sport

He has stated the he would NOT humanely dispatch an terminally injured, sick or suffering animal, so presumably he would be content to watch it writhe out its life in agony....
Nope I would not as I do not want to be the one killing the animal, but this makes me laugh when you kill for fun, sorry and you use this as a moral point, that is not only hilarious but embarrassing from your view point, as there is no moral point to kill animals for fun

so heres a little common place dilemma for you....

you are driving down te road one early morning and bump bump.....oooooops....you have just hit a rabbit that ran out of the hedgerow...do you

keep driving...dont look back and pretend it didnt happen....the didge view

stop...run back and sit there wringing your hands in sorrow and begging its forgiveness....the JD view

stop...run back with priest from shooting jacket in your hand...give it a good whack on the back of the head and consign it regretfully to the hedge bottom.....the educated veggies view

or...
stop...run back with priest from shooting jacket in your hand...give it a good whack on the back of the head, nip into back of van and put it into 12v fridge then at the first convenient point gut skin and joint it, either for yourself..or if too badly damaged for the dogs.......the hunters view

victorisnotamused wrote:On  seperate point Didge

answer this

the kid that refused to join in the game with the coloured kid

I would argue thus

EITHER   the kid for some reason had its own (albeit perverse) reasons not to want to...

OR  the kid had learned racism from its parents..

now

in the first scenario are you then to say that the kid no longer has the right to choose its friends? that in effect it must accept as friends anyone that "authority (as opposed to its parents) tells it it must"?? and that giving that black mark as a threat is justified

in the second, you are in effect, by giving that kid a black mark on its record, punishing the child for the percieved racism of its parents, effectively punishing the child for the sins of the parents...
so again is that black mark justified??

state sponsored terrorism....

Ben_Reilly wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:

If they do advocate fox hunting then they are not concerned in my view.

I just get tired of the b.s. reasons they say they're against halal, or "big government;" they should just be honest.

Don't make halal about "animal cruelty" if you really think, "This is a Muslim thing and I hate Muslims so I want this done away with."

Don't make "big government" about "the economy" if you really think, "I don't like minorities and the poor, and certain politicians have convinced me that they have it too good, so I want them to suffer."

Thankfully, in the U.S. our right-wing idiots have more or less dropped the facade. When Mitt Romney said:

"There are 47 percent of the people ... who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them."

... he comically tried to deny it, but tons of right-wingers came out of the woodwork here and said he was absolutely right.

FluffyBunny wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

I just get tired of the b.s. reasons they say they're against halal, or "big government;" they should just be honest.

Don't make halal about "animal cruelty" if you really think, "This is a Muslim thing and I hate Muslims so I want this done away with."

Don't make "big government" about "the economy" if you really think, "I don't like minorities and the poor, and certain politicians have convinced me that they have it too good, so I want them to suffer."

Thankfully, in the U.S. our right-wing idiots have more or less dropped the facade. When Mitt Romney said:

"There are 47 percent of the people ... who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them."

... he comically tried to deny it, but tons of right-wingers came out of the woodwork here and said he was absolutely right.

The RW's here are dropping the facade but it will be interesting to see if they actually go through with voting UKIP come election time.

I actually do have a problem with Halal because I consider it barbaric,nothing to do with Muslims at all.

Joy Division wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:

Are you a veggie then JD?

I do eat chicken and pork FB, so I'll sound a bit hypocritical, but I could easily do without any meat if it meant it was not available, I'd rather the animals were not killed in order to feed us,,,

So if it's an argument of animal killing just to feed a person's stomache ...then I would say it's selfish of people to expect an animal to die just to feed and appease us, as some people take great pleasure in shooting game,

Some will no doubt say something g to the effect of .....that JD's just a great big knob, but that's up to them.

I don't eat beef, lamb or eggs btw.

FluffyBunny wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


I do eat chicken and pork FB, so I'll sound a bit hypocritical, but I could easily do without any meat if it meant it was not available, I'd rather the animals were not killed in order to feed us,,,

So if it's an argument of animal killing just to feed a person's stomache ...then I would say it's selfish of people to expect an animal to die just to feed and appease us, as some people take great pleasure in shooting game,

Some will no doubt say something g to the effect of .....that JD's just a great big knob, but that's up to them.

I don't eat beef, lamb or eggs btw.

You came across as a little bit hypocritical,yes.  

But I am willing to admit I am a hypocrite aswell even though I very rarely eat meat,I still do on occasion. Even though that clip of animal slaughter made me tearful earlier I still will continue to eat meat,albeit rarely ,so I must not be a 'true animal lover' as Didge suggested.

I maintain though that Halal slaughter is madness and I don't care what religious views are upheld regarding it,when conducted without stunning it should be banned.

Sassy wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:

You came across as a little bit hypocritical,yes.  

But I am willing to admit I am a hypocrite aswell even though I very rarely eat meat,I still do on occasion. Even though that clip of animal slaughter made me tearful earlier I still will continue to eat meat,albeit rarely ,so I must not be a 'true animal lover' as Didge suggested.

I maintain though that Halal slaughter is madness and I don't care what religious views are upheld regarding it,when conducted without stunning it should be banned.

Fluff, it really isn't madness, it's the kindest.   As well as the info I posted on the other thread, I know this, because my daughter had a canula put in her carotid artery by mistake and left open so that blood literally spurted out.   She was unconcious within seconds and remembered nothing, so I know that if both arteries and the jugular are opened at the same time the brain empties of blood so quickly you would barely register it had happened.   Reaction of the nervous system might make you move, but you wouldn't know anything about it.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:

If they do advocate fox hunting then they are not concerned in my view.

I just get tired of the b.s. reasons they say they're against halal, or "big government;" they should just be honest.

Don't make halal about "animal cruelty" if you really think, "This is a Muslim thing and I hate Muslims so I want this done away with."

Don't make "big government" about "the economy" if you really think, "I don't like minorities and the poor, and certain politicians have convinced me that they have it too good, so I want them to suffer."

Thankfully, in the U.S. our right-wing idiots have more or less dropped the facade. When Mitt Romney said:

"There are 47 percent of the people ... who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them."

... he comically tried to deny it, but tons of right-wingers came out of the woodwork here and said he was absolutely right.

gerber wrote:

Sassy wrote:

Fluff, it really isn't madness, it's the kindest.   As well as the info I posted on the other thread, I know this, because my daughter had a canula put in her carotid artery by mistake and left open so that blood literally spurted out.   She was unconcious within seconds and remembered nothing, so I know that if both arteries and the jugular are opened at the same time the brain empties of blood so quickly you would barely register it had happened.   Reaction of the nervous system might make you move, but you wouldn't know anything about it.

I thank you, just finished dinner.  Can feel the swell as I type. :::grouch::