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)These two statements disagree with each other, do you not have any humanity or sympathy at all?
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.
Let's all cuddle the calf that we're going to kill to eat... YAY!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.
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.
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.
You're missing the point completely.
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.
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.
Some ppl only care how good the burger tastes unfortunately :/
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,
![]()
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.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
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.
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.
I.E. you mean you want to know whether or not your purchasing Halal, Kosher or any other Religiously killed food source.
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
Well, there is a link to The Brent & Kilburn Times in The Mail article. Is that good enough?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
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?Remember when you guys were either insinuating or calling me racist for saying a mulsim check out worker was shocked by my pink pork?
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.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.
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.![]()
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.