Halal Meat in Shops

[Root 66 Woodshop]

Selfish?
Lack of compassion?

Actually Dying and couldn't give a shit what you think

 

[Root 66 Woodshop]

Based on?

Based on the evidence all over the world - all of the continuing wars over bugger all but religious views.

When I hear about soldiers raping and killing women for nothing but religious views or having a difference of opinion then that in itself shows just how backwards this world is when it comes to setting it's standards.

 

[Excel Expert]

That is not proof, that is just opinion.

Wars over religion and questionable reasons has been going on for the entire history of mankind and all around the world. The number of countries that commit war crimes such as large scale rape and genocide has dropped since the war. Apart from really isolated cases by rouge soldiers it would be very difficult to find a western country taking part in war crimes to any scale. Up until 9/11 the western world couldn't care less what was happening on the other side of the planet so conflicts and war crimes went mainly unreported. Since 9/11 and the advent of rolling TV reporting on these conditions, wars and crimes is on our TV 24/7 - giving the impression that it is growing.

Deaths from wars has actually dropped since WW2 (300 people per 100,000) to less than 1 in 100,000 people.

As well as advances in technology with have advances in medicine, civil rights, living conditions, education.

There are small pockets of backwardness but in my opinion society is still marching forward

 

[sirearl]

Deaths from wars has actually dropped since WW2 (300 people per 100,000) to less than 1 in 100,000 people.

Figures do not add up.

9 million died in Vietnam alone,a 20% of deaths in ww2.

 

[MikeJ]

Estimates of the number of casualties vary, with the Vietnamese government suggesting as many as 3.1 million violent war deaths, Vietnamese and foreigners, soldiers included.[1][2] A detailed demographic study calculated 791,000–1,141,000 war-related Vietnamese deaths, both soldiers and civilians, for all of Vietnam from 1965 to 1975.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties#Total_Number_of_Deaths_in_the_Vietnam_War

And that's over 10 years, so a longer period than WW2.

 

[simon field]

Maybe the point is - we've got all the trappings and luxuries of modern technology - everything we could possibly want to make our lives easier, but we still indulge in killing as many of our fellow humans as possible just to prove our superiority over them.

When it suits of course

To me, that indicates we haven't really progressed very far as a species!

 

[Davek0974]

Maybe the point is - we've got all the trappings and luxuries of modern technology - everything we could possibly want to make our lives easier, but we still indulge in killing as many of our fellow humans as possible just to prove our superiority over them.

When it suits of course

To me, that indicates we haven't really progressed very far as a species!

Not counting the few specific killings - drug, gang related etc, I still think most of the killing you refer to is because of religion. Its one religion trying to overcome the next. Remove religion and the problems and issues seem to have no grounds. It's not one continent against the other, most of the time it's next-door neighbours fighting pointlessly against one another.

Christians gave up the crusades many years ago, have the other religions also given up trying to forcibly convert or assert?

 

[Excel Expert]

MikeJ - 100% agree but I think the Vietnam War may have been even longer. It depends on when you class the start of the Vietnam war. The same Wikipedia has it starting in 1955 (making it 20 years not 10 years), but I think the first 10 years did not see heavy military involvement. It was mainly guerilla war stuff.

SimonField - Conflicts have existed for those reasons since the dawn of mankind, the point is it is generally reducing (apart from events like WW1 & WW2). As civilisation moves forward mechanisms are built to help prevent wars between nations. The UN and the EU being prime examples.

Davek0974 - Care to provide stats that prove religion has created most wars? Religion is almost always dragged in after the event or to help magnify ethnic issues or political justifications. It is very rare to find a war that has been 100% created by a religious differences. It is very hard to find a religion that requires the forcible conversion of people - it is all down to groups of people bastardising the religion to meet their political ends

 

[Root 66 Woodshop]

That is not proof, that is just opinion.

Exactly my point Carl, Exactly!... My opinion is different to others therefore I'm a tosser?? Doesn't make sense does it...

 

[Excel Expert]

Interesting point. Here is my take on it.

Opinions will land in different places on peoples ethics scores. For me any opinion that endorses any sort unnecessary harm to animals or humans scores very low on my ethics scale. I personally rate endorsing the needless suffering of an animal, just to put a burger on my plate, the same as fox hunting (with hounds) and bull fighting. To me, all of them are just plain unethical and undefendable because there is no need or call for any of them. But that is on my own personal ethics scale.

If you go to a BNP meeting you will find opinions there that says it is ok to attack people because of their skin colour. In other areas you will find people of the opinion that it is ok to attack people because of their religion or their sexuality. They are also all "just opinions". For most people in the UK they would score 0 on peoples ethics scores.

 

[Davek0974]

Davek0974 - Care to provide stats that prove religion has created most wars? Religion is almost always dragged in after the event or to help magnify ethnic issues or political justifications. It is very rare to find a war that has been 100% created by a religious differences. It is very hard to find a religion that requires the forcible conversion of people - it is all down to groups of people bastardising the religion to meet their political ends

Well, I did say "think" i.e. it was my opinion. However, I stand corrected and have found a stat or two...

Quote:
According to the Encyclopedia of Wars (Phillips and Axelrod), of the 1,763 major conflicts in recorded history, only 123 of them can be classified as having been fought over religious differences. That’s less than 7 percent.

So yes, you are correct in that religion seems to be dragged in later and used to fuel the fire.

 

[MikeJ]

Religion doesn't cause wars, it's just a method of choosing sides.

 

[Excel Expert]

Dave - I've been looking for that stat, thanks.

It is a very common belief, which I think comes from religion being dragged in after the wars have started. Out of those 1,763 wars I suspect the majority of them had religion dragged in to them afterwards, which is probably where the belief comes from.

MikeJ - I'm not sure it's a way of choosing sides, more of a way of a government leading its people in to war. By using phrases like "They are attacking our Christian* beliefs" it builds the belief that the opposing side are attacking our defenceless religions, which in turn builds more support for a war.

*Substitute any religion here

 

[Root 66 Woodshop]

Interesting point. Here is my take on it.

Opinions will land in different places on peoples ethics scores. For me any opinion that endorses any sort unnecessary harm to animals or humans scores very low on my ethics scale. I personally rate endorsing the needless suffering of an animal, just to put a burger on my plate, the same as fox hunting (with hounds) and bull fighting. To me, all of them are just plain unethical and undefendable because there is no need or call for any of them. But that is on my own personal ethics scale.

If you go to a BNP meeting you will find opinions there that says it is ok to attack people because of their skin colour. In other areas you will find people of the opinion that it is ok to attack people because of their religion or their sexuality. They are also all "just opinions". For most people in the UK they would score 0 on peoples ethics scores.

when did I ever say that I endorsed it? I don't believe I did... what I said was that it doesn't keep me up at night, nor do I stress over it simply because it may have suffered... at the end of the day we'll never really know, just because we're told that they don't suffer doesn't actually mean that it's true.

 

[sirearl]

Estimates of the number of casualties vary, with the Vietnamese government suggesting as many as 3.1 million violent war deaths, Vietnamese and foreigners, soldiers included.[1][2] A detailed demographic study calculated 791,000–1,141,000 war-related Vietnamese deaths, both soldiers and civilians, for all of Vietnam from 1965 to 1975.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties#Total_Number_of_Deaths_in_the_Vietnam_War

And that's over 10 years, so a longer period than WW2.

Vietnam had been at war since 1945,Governments and the military are notorious for playing down casualty rate.

Still there are 3.3 million in DRC,2 million in Sudan ,1 million in Rewanda,Iraq e.t.c.

 

[Excel Expert]

I never said you endorsed - I was explaining how peoples opinions and ethics mix, and hence why some opinions will provoke a less than a happy response.

By being someone who is happy to consume meat where the welfare of the animal hasn't been taken in to account, you are condoning (rather than endorsing) that behaviour.

All of our current scientific knowledge points to pre-stunning being the most humane method of killing an animal - I have yet to see any evidence that it isn't.

If we know this and don't use that knowledge accordingly we are wilfully causing pain and suffering in an animal through inaction. If we do use it we are wilfully doing our best to prevent pain and suffering.

As you dont care if it is stunned or not beforehand you are actually condoning unnecessary suffering of an animal.

 

[Excel Expert]

SirEarl - An interesting report from the British Medical Journal

http://www.bmj.com/content/336/7659/1482

Not had a chance to read it in full but the data they gathered seems to indicate deaths from war has been on a downward trend between 55 and 02 apart from one spike for Vietnam. It of course so not cover Afghanistan. I would expect to see the downward trend continue but spike for Arghanistan

 

[Root 66 Woodshop]

Stunning - when performed correctly, causes an animal to lose consciousness, so the animal can’t feel pain. The law states that, with few exemptions, all animals must be stunned before ‘sticking’ is carried out.

Sticking - is when an animal’s throat is cut, using a very sharp knife, severing the major blood vessels in its neck/chest that supply the brain, ensuring rapid blood loss and therefore death.

The thing that really gets me with this is that we really don't know whether or not "Stunning" means that an animal does not feel pain... We are assuming that it doesn't because it doesn't react to it's throat being cut, but at the end of the day is there anyone out there alive that can talk to animals to determine whether or not an animal does feel the pain once it's been stunned? Simple answer is No... we can run as many tests as we like but think about it... when a criminal is stunned with an electric stun gun we know for a fact that they FEEL the pain during and the after affects can be just as painful... For instance, when someone is shot with a Taser gun, they could fall and break an arm, cuts, bruises etc etc when animals are stunned are they protected against broken bones, again simple answer is No.

As I've said though, and I still stand by what I've stated - I have more important things to deal with in life - I will not waste my time thinking about how my kebab or burger got on my plate.

 

[Excel Expert]

We know from our experiences of the human body we don't feel anything once unconscious and all medical indicators point to it not happening once unconscious. Take someone unconscious for an operation, they don't feel anything. I was in a car accident that knocked me out for 4 days - I cant remember a thing about them cutting me free of the car.

Scientists have measured heart and brain activities, during operations, after accidents and even on animals before and after the stunning process to determine if these things are humane and they find they no signs of pain being registered.

Unless you can come up with any sort of evidence to oppose that you, are basically just hanging on to the weak "how do we know, because we cant to talk to animals" argument to justify you condoning letting animals suffer.

If you are happy to condone animal suffering, that is up to you, dont be expecting us to join you when you have zero evidence to back up your doubts.

 

[Root 66 Woodshop]

LOL! I'm not letting animals suffer at all... I'm not the one killing them, get a grip

Take someone unconscious for an operation, they don't feel anything.

Not at all true, sorry but that is totally false - the reason folk don't feel anything when unconscious is because they've been given anesthetic whilst under.

Most of the time, doctors have a simple way to determine if a patient needs pain medication: They ask. But when a brain injury renders someone unable to respond to questions, the right course of action becomes murkier. Now a study finds that the brains of some patients with brain injuries respond to an unpleasant electrical shock much as do the brains of healthy people, suggesting that these patients may feel pain even though they're unable to show it.

Little is known about pain perception in unconscious patients, says Steven Laureys, a neurologist at the University of Liège in Belgium and the senior author of the new study. As a result, whether to provide drugs is up to individual doctors. Some doctors withhold medications, Laureys says, assuming that these patients are unable to feel pain. Other doctors give drugs more liberally but in turn risk sedating patients and missing flickering signs of consciousness.

http://news.sciencemag.org/health/2008/10/unconscious-brain-still-registers-pain

May well be over 6 years ago, but studies still cannot prove that humans NOR animals do not feel pain whilst unconscious.

 

[Excel Expert]

I didnt say you were letting animals suffer at all, I said you were condoning it by not caring less. There is a difference between condoning, endorsing and doing.

There are two types of aesthetic. The first is the local which stops pain signals being sent from the area of pain. The general anaesthetic renders you unconscious and the pain signals work as normal, except there is nothing switched on to interrupt the signals. As a result they go unnoticed. The only time painkillers are included in a general anaesthetic is if post op pain is expected (not to stop you feeling pain during the operation)

The study you sent is using the word "unconscious" to refer to people in a vegetative state. That is far different to being physically knocked unconscious, anaesthetised or electrocuted unconscious. Vegetative states are caused by many things such as brain damage. This means they are often paralysed and can not react to any stimuli. Brain activity is greatly diminished etc.

If they can prove someone in such a state can detect pain by measuring brain waves etc, don't you think they would have done the same simple tests on people and animals knocked out by anaesthetics, trauma, electrocution

 

[MASSEY]

Actually Dying and couldn't give a **** what you think

Aren't we all?

We begin to die the moment we are born.

I can understand where you are coming from to a degree. Once the animal dies it can't recollect anything, so why does it matter whether it struggles or not.

But for some reason it doesn't sit well with me.

I think it makes for a more safer and pleasant society if we show compassion for life in general.

 

[MASSEY]

If meat is clearly labelled halal and you are in an establishment that has other foods that are not labelled halal available, most people would avoid the halal. I would avoid it even if it said halal but stunned because it seems weaker stunning may be happening. And as i said earlier in the thread, i think us eating Halal offers muslims some sort of backing for their brutal butchery the world over.

I think if people in the UK were treated with some respect and given proper labeling supermarkets would consider halal to be more of a niche product, which is what it should be when the people who wish for it probably account for less than 5% of the population, and so would other food retailers which would mean non muslims would be less likely to get tricked into eating it.

I'd rather people who wish to eat halal had to visit back alley ways to find suppliers in a cloak and dagger fashion with society viewing them in a similar way we do child molesters.

There's something not right when a majority has to pander to the whims of a minority. It doesn't make sense.

 

[sirearl]

SirEarl - An interesting report from the British Medical Journal

http://www.bmj.com/content/336/7659/1482

Not had a chance to read it in full but the data they gathered seems to indicate deaths from war has been on a downward trend between 55 and 02 apart from one spike for Vietnam. It of course so not cover Afghanistan. I would expect to see the downward trend continue but spike for Arghanistan

Strange how stats can vary so much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War

 

[simon field]

This country is where we get most of our bits and pieces

 

[Davek0974]

If meat is clearly labelled halal and you are in an establishment that has other foods that are not labelled halal available, most people would avoid the halal. I would avoid it even if it said halal but stunned because it seems weaker stunning may be happening. And as i said earlier in the thread, i think us eating Halal offers muslims some sort of backing for their brutal butchery the world over.

I think if people in the UK were treated with some respect and given proper labeling supermarkets would consider halal to be more of a niche product, which is what it should be when the people who wish for it probably account for less than 5% of the population, and so would other food retailers which would mean non muslims would be less likely to get tricked into eating it.

I'd rather people who wish to eat halal had to visit back alley ways to find suppliers in a cloak and dagger fashion with society viewing them in a similar way we do child molesters.

There's something not right when a majority has to pander to the whims of a minority. It doesn't make sense.

Well said.

All people like myself and many others want is for things to be clearly labelled, and by refusing to do this very simple task, the government is fuelling tension, resentment and anger.

 

[MASSEY]

The DM are loving their halal articles lately.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...mits-doesnt-label-meat-UK-overseas-bases.html

Notice what it says in the blue box in the article. Supermarkets have been selling new zealand produce, which hasn't been stunned.

Until we get labeling we don't have a clue whether we are eating meat that has been treated properly.

 

[Excel Expert]

Strange how stats can vary so much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War

There is no fixed way of counting war dead, especially in wars like the Congo because people don't know the true results. Who knows how many people ended up in mass graves or fled over borders.

What the BMJ report tried to do was isolate those that died in military battle to get the measure of war dead. I believe it excludes genocide killings which in some ways is a part of the same overall conflict it is not as a result of military on military action. I've not read it fully but going on past reports I have read, splitting military on military is treated differently to genocide.

I believe the theory is that war is a legal battle and genocide is a war crime.

 

[Excel Expert]

Notice what it says in the blue box in the article. Supermarkets have been selling new zealand produce, which hasn't been stunned.

It does not say that all - Stop reading the Daily Mail

It says

"It was also revealed that leading supermarkets are selling New Zealand lamb killed in accordance with halal ritual without providing labels."

Our meat in this country is killed in accordance with the halal ritual and includes stunning. The Daily Mail has been its usual slipper self and inferred the conclusion you've come up with (i.e. its not stunned). You've read that it is not stunned in your mind to find something objectionable to moan about.

You went straight past this paragraph

"The MoD said all food procured for personnel had to comply with MoD food quality standards, which meet those set by all UK and EU production standards, including the Animal Welfare Act."

All food sold in this country has to obey the same laws, and that covers the welfare act. If they didn't they would face closure.

If you read the Daily Mail you will be lied to, pure and simple. It is impossible to find a report in the paper that does not contradicts its self or infers a totally different story from the actual facts.

 

[simon field]

What would be the worst that could happen if we simply stopped doing all this halal nonsense in this country?

Muslins would have to eat something else.

Well I go to the foot of my stairs. Does anyone care? (apart from muslims)

 

[Davek0974]

What would be the worst that could happen if we simply stopped doing all this halal nonsense in this country?

Muslins would have to eat something else.

Well I go to the foot of my stairs. Does anyone care? (apart from muslims)

This is another bone of contention.

The whole Halal issue smacks of appeasement on a massive scale.

The Koran states that [Muslims] are allowed to eat haram food if halal is not available so what is the big issue?

It has always been here though, but only in small specialist butchers and outlets dealing in halal certified produce, I had no issues with this whatsoever.

If you did some simple research you would be amazed/horriffied/astounded/shocked at exactly what produce is halal certified today.

 

[Root 66 Woodshop]

Aren't we all?

We begin to die the moment we are born.

I can understand where you are coming from to a degree. Once the animal dies it can't recollect anything, so why does it matter whether it struggles or not.

But for some reason it doesn't sit well with me.

I think it makes for a more safer and pleasant society if we show compassion for life in general.

No, I am actually Dying thanks, I have WPW and a load of other issues that are causing my body to fail and shut down now... according to the Doctors I'm a Ticking Time Bomb - I could go any minute and there isn't Jack that they can do about it... Oh well shit happens I'll come back and haunt folk, scare the crap out of them... as I'm a git like that

The evidence I've provided despite being about vegetative state of unconsciousness gives me the knowledge that when it's my time to go whenever that's going to be whether anyone likes it or not is either going to be extremely painful or nothing that's it, I'm gone... at the end of the day I don't give a toss whether I die painfully or not it's going to happen, it's life everyone will get over it.

The fact that science still cannot determine whether or not pain is felt while unconscious whether due to vegetative state or not tells me that people stress over bugger all and there's far more to think about in life than whether or not a cow suffered FFS.

People really need to get a grip and enjoy their lives instead of trying to find something to moan or groan about it really ****s me off TBH

 

[MikeJ]

People really need to get a grip and enjoy their lives instead of trying to find something to moan or groan about it really ****s me off TBH

Classic.

Maybe you should enjoy your life, rather than trying to find something to moan and groan about!

 

[Root 66 Woodshop]

I am doing, hence why I don't give a shit whether Mr Ed is sliced and diced correctly or not

 

[MASSEY]

My mistake on the new zealand, i thought i remembered reading about how NZ meat isn't stunned. The reason they included it is because apparently 70% of NZ meat on uk shelves is halal Quite astonishing really.

 

[MASSEY]

No, I am actually Dying thanks, I have WPW and a load of other issues that are causing my body to fail and shut down now... according to the Doctors I'm a Ticking Time Bomb - I could go any minute and there isn't Jack that they can do about it... Oh well **** happens I'll come back and haunt folk, scare the crap out of them... as I'm a git like that

The evidence I've provided despite being about vegetative state of unconsciousness gives me the knowledge that when it's my time to go whenever that's going to be whether anyone likes it or not is either going to be extremely painful or nothing that's it, I'm gone... at the end of the day I don't give a toss whether I die painfully or not it's going to happen, it's life everyone will get over it.

The fact that science still cannot determine whether or not pain is felt while unconscious whether due to vegetative state or not tells me that people stress over bugger all and there's far more to think about in life than whether or not a cow suffered FFS.

People really need to get a grip and enjoy their lives instead of trying to find something to moan or groan about it really ****s me off TBH

I remember you mentioning your situation previously, you seem to be coping with it well though.

I would think that pain is less likely to register if you are conked out. We have to presume it does though, to avoid any potential unnecessary suffering.

One of my favourite musings is whether or not you remain conscious after being decapitated. I remember reading about a scientist who let his pal chop is head off to test it out. He blinked a certain number of times to tell his mate whether he could still see and think. Whether it was BS i don't know.

 

[Comspec]

I did a lot of computer cabling in abbatoirs for the DoA a number of years ago (about the time of the BSE scare actually), and I think, if you were to visit them often enough, you'd have no doubt that the animals are treated as humanely as somewhere like that permits.... but it is not for the faint-hearted. If you have ever heard the calves moaning in the trailer as they are waiting to be unloaded, you would be convinced they knew this was not going to be a good place, and the sound of it will haunt even the hardest of people (first time I heard it, it sounded like children....something I struggled to shake off even once I knew what it was).

No slaughterhouse is going to kill an animal by tickling it to death with a feather whilst it lies on a bed of fresh grass, surrounded by fresh flowers, and listening to Leonard Cohen. They are animals we as a nation have decided we want to eat, so they are there to be slaughtered - end of.

I am a little confused that this Halal thing has become such an issue - surely it is only a small proportion of the UK population who have a 'purely religious' reason for it? If this is the case - why then should me and everyone else be forced into eating it? Personally, I don't give a stuff, I am aware that killing animals is never going to be nice, but I want to eat the booger and I don't fancy chasing it up a field to kill it myself If you don't like the way we kill them - try the vegetarian option, others do that like.

 

[Davek0974]

I am a little confused that this Halal thing has become such an issue - surely it is only a small proportion of the UK population who have a 'purely religious' reason for it? If this is the case - why then should me and everyone else be forced into eating it? .

That is another good point, only approx 5% of the UK is Muslim, the fact that this 5% is somehow dictating issues for the other 95% seems odd. Appeasement, pandering or profiteering spring to mind.

 

[Ethicsandprofits]

Ok, I will open this can of worms. What do people think of this story?

Here is my take on it - be warned descriptions of the slaughter process included.

In about 88% of Halal slaughters the animal is stunned and then killed by cutting the throat while a prayer is said. However the (HFA) Halal Food Authority acknowledges in large slaughter houses where the slaughterer has to wear defenders no one can hear if the prayer is said or not.

The standard UK/European slaughter method is to stun the animal and then to kill the animal by cutting arteries to the heart or other such methods.

So to me in those 88% of Halal slaughters there is no more or less suffering by the animal than an ordinary UK slaughter. Places like Subway, Pizza Express and the supermarkets work with the HFA and purchase their Halal meat from places where the animal is stunned first.

According to the RSPCA website a further 10% of Halal slaughters are where the animals throat is cut a few seconds before being stunned. i.e. it is stunned before the injuries kill them. This leaves only 2% of Halal slaughters without any form of stunning.

On the cruelty front what about fish? Everyday hundreds of thousands of fish are netted and pulled ........

Ok, I've lit the blue touch paper and I'm now retiring to a safe distance

I totally agree with you, that ppl tend to have 2 faces when it comes to these issues ( fish/animals). Tbh, I dont care if the animal is stunned or not. I do believe it should be given a quick and proper death. I dont believe stunning an animal contributes to that.

 

[Davek0974]

Tbh, I dont care if the animal is stunned or not. I do believe it should be given a quick and proper death.

These two statements disagree with each other, do you not have any humanity or sympathy at all?