Toggle sidebar

Halal Meat in Shops

  • Thread starter Thread starter Excel Expert
  • Start date Start date
Sort by date Sort by votes
Let's all cuddle the calf that we're going to kill to eat... YAY! :D Humane at it's best? ;)

Remember to bless your freezer with love and understanding for all the meat that you're about to place into it.
 
Upvote 0
Davek0974 said:
These two statements disagree with each other, do you not have any humanity or sympathy at all?
Click to expand...
Thats a bit harsch lol. I do not believe a nail to your brain or electric shock is any less painfull than the normal way of killing them. (btw 10% of the stunning does not actually "stun" , thats proven, on a big scale industrie that means millions of animal)

What is more important and human instead of "stunning" them, is killng them seperately. That way the animals dont have to see each other die and wait for their own death. Even better is, not keeping them in a small cage for their entire life. We should concentrate on those instead of a gun to your head or an electric shock up your a##.
 
Upvote 0
Ethicsandprofits said:
I do not believe a nail to your brain or electric shock is any less painfull than the normal way of killing them. (btw 10% of the stunning does not actually "stun" , thats proven, on a big scale industrie that means millions of animal)

What I believe is more important and human instead of "stunning" them, killng them seperately. That way the animals dont have to see each other die and wait for their own death.
Click to expand...

The "Normal" way of killing animals is a full stun first, I'm not sure what you call "Normal"?

Yes we eat meat, of course we do, but it is our duty to see that animals for meat are killed as humanely as possible in every instance. In my books, having your throat slit and beeding to death is not humane OR painless.
 
Upvote 0
Davek0974 said:
The "Normal" way of killing animals is a full stun first, I'm not sure what you call "Normal"?

Yes we eat meat, of course we do, but it is our duty to see that animals for meat are killed as humanely as possible in every instance. In my books, having your throat slit and beeding to death is not humane OR painless.
Click to expand...

I think you are missing what I am actually trying to say. I believe the animals should have a decent death. I believe shooting a nail in their brain/electrocuting them is not any better than their troat slit, just my opinion. What I think is more important is that we should focus on is how they are treated while they are alive.....specially in our super factories era.
 
Upvote 0
Ethicsandprofits said:
I think you are missing what I am actually trying to say. I believe the animals should have a decent death. I believe shooting a nail in their brain/electrocuting them is not any better than their troat slit, just my opinion. What I think is more important is that we should focus on is how they are treated while they are alive.....specially in our super factories era.
Click to expand...

It has been widely tested, reported and agreed that a full stun IS currently the most humane way, there are very few doubts about this now, certain minority sectors of the market choose to ignore this though.

And yes. I am all for improvements in care, transport and welfare of livestock.

We are making improvements, vast improvements in the last few years, but it needs public support to stop buying the cheapest crappiest chicken meat, eggs and other meats just because they are 3p/kg cheaper than decently reared, handled and properly slaughtered products.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ethicsandprofits
Upvote 0
Davek0974 said:
You're missing the point completely.
Click to expand...

I'm not missing the point at all, everything folk are saying is hypocritical in the sense that people believe that it is "humane" to stun an animal before killing it for food...people are complaining about how HALAL food should be labelled exactly that, if that's the case then all food should have a label saying "This animal was stunned before we killed it".

The most typical disclaimer for documentaries involving animals states that no animal was hurt during filming or along those lines... yet we don't know whether or not they were before or after filming so the statement to me is merely a ploy to make people feel at ease watching such programs and nothing more.
 
Upvote 0
Haunted Worlds said:
I'm not missing the point at all, everything folk are saying is hypocritical in the sense that people believe that it is "humane" to stun an animal before killing it for food...people are complaining about how HALAL food should be labelled exactly that, if that's the case then all food should have a label saying "This animal was stunned before we killed it".

The most typical disclaimer for documentaries involving animals states that no animal was hurt during filming or along those lines... yet we don't know whether or not they were before or after filming so the statement to me is merely a ploy to make people feel at ease watching such programs and nothing more.
Click to expand...

There is no "sense"thats it's humane, its a documented fact based on tests, naturally you can believe what you want.

And yes of course it should be clearly labelled "RS" for religiously slaughtered, its not just Halal.
 
Upvote 0
OK, so what you're saying is that as long as you know in your heart that your burger has been killed by being stunned when it was alive you're happier to eat it?

That's just completely mind numbing and completely dumb... Sorry but it is - That's my opinion based upon how the only argument that you have is that it's "humane".

Do you care about how fish are caught, some clubbed over their heads and most "drowned" i.e. starved of oxygen by removing them from the water that which they breath?

I find the psychosis of some people extremely weird when it comes to mundane things like this.

People would rather argue the toss over whether it's humane to kill a cow in a certain way, but ignore the fact that "we're" far privileged than percentages of the world when it comes to food and medicines.
 
Upvote 0
I said its our duty to use the most humane way possible, you are being obtuse by stating that we cant kill fish individually, of course we can't so we use the most humane way possible. Slitting the throat of a cow without a full stun IS NOT the most humane way possible.

Obviously your views are your views, but i think you will find yourself in the minority with them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MASSEY
Upvote 0
I don't think i am a hypocrite. I don't buy eggs from caged hens and i eat mostly pork to be honest.

But i don't think it should be up to the average joe to have to research whether their meat is moral and reputable, the government should make it so that it is clear as day.

If it wasn't for religion and people blabbing on about human rights killing animals inhumanely would be a crime in the UK, but they don't have the bottle to do it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Root 66 Woodshop and Davek0974
Upvote 0
I have to ask would one prefer a long lingering death or a quick one.

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

Answers on a postcard to God.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Root 66 Woodshop
Upvote 0
MASSEY said:
I don't think i am a hypocrite. I don't buy eggs from caged hens and i eat mostly pork to be honest.

But i don't think it should be up to the average joe to have to research whether their meat is moral and reputable, the government should make it so that it is clear as day.

If it wasn't for religion and people blabbing on about human rights killing animals inhumanely would be a crime in the UK, but they don't have the bottle to do it.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

The whole issue is brought about by a spineless government who think they know best.
 
Upvote 0
Ethicsandprofits said:
Some ppl only care how good the burger tastes unfortunately :/
Click to expand...

Terribly sorry to state the obvious but Yes, you're correct... I really don't give a toss whether or not my Burger was stunned or had it's throat slit, as daft as it sounds there's more to life to worry about in this day and age.

If that makes me out to be someone that is seen as being inhumane then so be it... At the end of the day I'm not the one killing it, so why on earth should I even give a shit? :) All I'm going to see is the final produce which is pre-wrapped and good to eat.


HannibalLecter2.jpg
 
Upvote 0
Hardly, I may be eating the end product but at the end of the day that animal has been raised to be eaten. Seriously, If I even gave a toss I'd be a vegetarian or vegan if all I thought about all day was whether or not chicken little suffered or not. :D

At least I'm being honest about it, I could be like most folk who kick off over deranged stuff that doesn't even deserve an argument or discussion over. :)
 
Upvote 0
sirearl said:
I have to ask would one prefer a long lingering death or a quick one.

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

Answers on a postcard to God.
Click to expand...

Sorry, just made me feel like having a Cheeseburger tonight. :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: sirearl
Upvote 0
Haunted Worlds said:
Terribly sorry to state the obvious but Yes, you're correct... I really don't give a toss whether or not my Burger was stunned or had it's throat slit, as daft as it sounds there's more to life to worry about in this day and age.

If that makes me out to be someone that is seen as being inhumane then so be it... At the end of the day I'm not the one killing it, so why on earth should I even give a ****? :) All I'm going to see is the final produce which is pre-wrapped and good to
Click to expand...
With this logic and reasoning, you might aswell eat human baby meat. As long as some1 else killed him/her and the end product tastes great ofcourse. ?... Awsome isnt it Mister Hannibal ^^. Keep up the good work, you make humanity proud.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Davek0974
Upvote 0
:D
Ethicsandprofits said:
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.
Click to expand...

And all you show is how deluded and how humanity is like a pack of wolves... Sorry, but one minute you're stating you don't care the next you're jumping on poor lil ole me because I have a different view on life... :( Boohoo...

TBH Instead of attempting to take a joke that I've made i.e. the hannibal image and turning it into something that it is not I suggest you like lil ole Dave get a grip and accept the fact that having a difference of opinion is not a democracy nor dictatorship - Just because my opinion on food source is different to yours doesn't mean to say you can attempt to bombard me with childish insults.
 
Upvote 0
MASSEY said:
I don't think i am a hypocrite. I don't buy eggs from caged hens and i eat mostly pork to be honest.

But i don't think it should be up to the average joe to have to research whether their meat is moral and reputable, the government should make it so that it is clear as day.

If it wasn't for religion and people blabbing on about human rights killing animals inhumanely would be a crime in the UK, but they don't have the bottle to do it.
Click to expand...

Moral and reputable? I.E. you mean you want to know whether or not your purchasing Halal, Kosher or any other Religiously killed food source.

TBH I think people should be more grateful of what we have rather than pondering on whether or not the food source suffered, there's people in countries far worse off than us who can't afford such luxuries as having pre-packed food.
 
Upvote 0
Was it really???

Hmm this is what I read...


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 out of the water and they are allowed to suffocate to death. There is no stunning or avoidance of stress. As many get gutted straight away how many are gutted while they are alive?

Ok, I've lit the blue touch paper and I'm now retiring to a safe distance
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
Remember when you guys were either insinuating or calling me racist for saying a mulsim check out worker was shocked by my pink pork?

Maybe this story will make it sound a little less as if i am bonkers.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...r-refused-sell-customer-ham-wine-Ramadan.html

I think fasting should come with a health warning. I was in a taxi drivers car a few years back during this rammy stuff and during the conversation he told me he was fasting because he was a muslim and felt tired. The same guy picked me up the next day and nearly fell asleep at the wheel. I had to say 'you alright mate' just to check he wasn't about to drive us into oncoming.
 
Upvote 0
Could there be a reason why the Daily Mail is the only paper reporting this story?

If there is no other paper reporting a story other than the Daily Mail there is 99% chance it is complete and utter tosh made up for click baiting. Until the story is backed up by another non-Daily Mail paper I would class is as a fairy tale
 
Upvote 0
Excel Expert said:
Could there be a reason why the Daily Mail is the only paper reporting this story?

If there is no other paper reporting a story other than the Daily Mail there is 99% chance it is complete and utter tosh made up for click baiting. Until the story is backed up by another non-Daily Mail paper I would class is as a fairy tale
Click to expand...
Well, there is a link to The Brent & Kilburn Times in The Mail article. Is that good enough?
(I don't think The Brent & Kilburn Times is owned by The Daily Mail & General Trust/The Great Satan. It seems to be part of the Norwich based Archant Group.)
 
Upvote 0
I'm personally not so convinced. A quick Google of "Lorraine King" (the reporter for the Brent & Kilburn Times) and the Daily Mail brings up some connections between the two. At least two reports come up where Lorraine King is involved in a Daily Mail report or the Daily Mail is involved in a Lorraine King report for other papers.

I'm not saying the events didnt happen, I'm just saying I dont trust a single word the Daily Mail says unless it is backed up by some real reporting. Dont forget this is the same week George Clooney called out the Daily Mail for stocking racial intolerance based on completely made up facts about his wife and mother law. The Daily Mail made no attempt to defend the story, pulled it and apologised (sort of indicating that the story didnt stack up in any shape or form).

Daily Mail adding massive spin to a story like this has to be completely expected based on their track record
 
Upvote 0
Haha! Well i would think that Tesco, a company that manages its reputation ferociously, would be quick to sue the mail or at least strongly advise them to get rid of the article if it wasn't true.

I think most news is sexed up but the mail seems to get more flack for it. The article seems pretty straight to me, muslim living and working in the uk for a uk company refuses to serve a British person because they view them as a haram dog and tesco refuse to condemn the stupidity for fear of offending muslims.
 
Upvote 0
Do post your search term for Lorraine King and Daily Mail as I get nothing of interest.

However it wouldn't be surprising if a journalist in London submitted stories to more than one London based paper. It's how freelance journalists and local news journalists make a living after all.

Whilst I take a lot of The Mail's content with a large pinch of salt I don't automatically assume that everything they print is fiction, which in it's own way is as bad as treating it all as gospel.

The story might well have 'racial' elements: but I doubt that a Christian checkout person would try and influence a customer during Lent, or refuse a customer fish on a Friday. Therein lies the difference between the religions, (rather than races), which is an interesting story.

I also doubt that The Mail would lead with this political story if they weren't fairly certain of the facts. It can't be compared to the Clooney story which was celebrity drivel, most of which is borderline fiction published with the connivance of the slebs or their agents.

Clooney is behaving like an ass. If lives were really in danger would he throw a strop about not accepting the apology and keep the story going, thus keeping lives in danger? If so he's an ass and a fool.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Comspec
Upvote 0
There is nothing major their Nuno, just some indicators they have worked on reports together or pooled resources at some point. From what I gather they were due to be taken over by the DM at one point but got guzumped at the last minute.

The George Clooney story is just the latest in a long line of stories that have been proven to be incorrect (this one was blamed on a jobbing journalist rather than one of their own). In this thread alone several reports from the DM have been ripped to shreds because they totally misrepresent data or what actually happened. As I said it does not make this report or any other particular report wrong. There are a couple of things that stop me trusting any Daily Mail report until it is backed up elsewhere.

1. They consistently report in this way and misrepresents stories to make scary headlines. Like the boy who called wolf, it makes anything they say impossible to trust.

2. They are now rated as the worlds 2nd highest visited news website. In 2012 it was number 1. They have discovered that click baiting makes them money and drags in the visitors. This gives them a clear financial motive (in my opinion) to lie and create these stories regardless of how true or untrue they are.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16746785

I have no doubt that there is some great journalism in the Daily Mail and I'm also sure not all the stories are 100% BS. The problem is that it is far too much hard work to pick out the truth
 
Upvote 0
MASSEY said:
Remember when you guys were either insinuating or calling me racist for saying a mulsim check out worker was shocked by my pink pork?
Click to expand...
Do you mean when people called you out for jumping to conclusions about a person's alleged reaction to you, for which you presented no evidence other than your own preconceptions of that person?

I think everyone remembers, yeah. ;)

MASSEY said:
I think fasting should come with a health warning. I was in a taxi drivers car a few years back during this rammy stuff and during the conversation he told me he was fasting because he was a muslim and felt tired. The same guy picked me up the next day and nearly fell asleep at the wheel. I had to say 'you alright mate' just to check he wasn't about to drive us into oncoming.
Click to expand...
That's a good point, although I think it falls under the same category as anyone else falling asleep at the wheel, religious fasting or not, and the numbers for the non-religious incidents of such are undoubtedly much higher.
 
Upvote 0
Cobby said:
Do you mean when people called you out for jumping to conclusions about a person's alleged reaction to you, for which you presented no evidence other than your own preconceptions of that person?

I think everyone remembers, yeah. ;)
Click to expand...

Blah blah!

That's a good point, although I think it falls under the same category as anyone else falling asleep at the wheel, religious fasting or not, and the numbers for the non-religious incidents of such are undoubtedly much higher.
Click to expand...

All irrelevant really. Ramadan is forcefully forcing people, whether hungry, tired, etc etc to work and suffer in many cases.

It's ordinarily something considered a health and safety danger, but under the guise of religion it's a human right for them to be able to put others at risk and be ginormous bigots.
 
Upvote 0
Happen to know many companies sell it as Halal when they clearly haven't said prayer. the slaughter is exactly the same. Give it a prayer when it's born - that it doesn't get slaughtered inhumanely I say
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest Articles

Top Bottom
Back