Religious beliefs or reduced cruelty to animals?

[nath]

I didnt mention anything about whether it causes more pain or not - my point is that trying to get laws changed so that they impact a group of people you dont like is a form of hate crime.

Whether or not that's what started this whole discussion is, in my opinion, completely irrelevant. The argument put forward by most people on this side is that there shouldn't be an exemption to animal cruelty laws for religion. What's the problem with that?

 

[DaGaffer]

I didnt mention anything about whether it causes more pain or not - my point is that trying to get laws changed so that they impact a group of people you dont like is a form of hate crime.

The scary thing is, there are lawyers who would make that kind of ridiculous argument "I can't do what I want so I'm being persecuted". Think through your argument for two seconds and you'll realise what a load of utter shite you're talking, or trolling.

Personally I think its really unfair that the authorities stop me from worshipping the God Quetzalcoatl by plucking the living heart from my sacrifices atop a stone pyramid. Its a fucking hate crime I tells ya.

 

[old.Tohtori]

/sigh

It's a valid question.

 

[nath]

It's a valid question.

Scientific based opinion is more valid. That's not to say that a scientists opinion is more valid - that's something quite different. An opinion based on a scientific approach is simply more valid than one based on gut feeling in the vast majority of situations I can imagine.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I can't say i agree with that, when personal opinions come to play.

Such like eating meat or not, they are still, ultimately, persons own ways of life.

If someone doesn't care how the meat is produced, it's equally valid as one basing theirs on a study that animals feel pain.

Then again we MIGHT be talking about some different descriptions of "personal opinion".

Ofcourse i do agree that SOME cases need scientific proof, but i think most personal opinions are like taste, just can't argue about it and as such, can't take a higher ground based on some science that can be, at a stretch, linked to it.

 

[Scouse]

/sigh again.

You knew that this was gonna happen nath!


In my personal opinion, the sky is green.

In my scientific-evidence backed opinion the sky appears blue.


Personal opinion is bullshit. Hold whatever opinion you like - but without scientific evidence to back it up then it should be treated with the contempt that it is deserving of

 

[nath]

I can't say i agree with that, when personal opinions come to play.

Such like eating meat or not, they are still, ultimately, persons own ways of life.

If someone doesn't care how the meat is produced, it's equally valid as one basing theirs on a study that animals feel pain.

Then again we MIGHT be talking about some different descriptions of "personal opinion".

Ofcourse i do agree that SOME cases need scientific proof, but i think most personal opinions are like taste, just can't argue about it and as such, can't take a higher ground based on some science that can be, at a stretch, linked to it.

We're not discussing entirely the same thing.

There's the question of whether one should give a shit about the animals that are to become our food.

There's the question of whether we should allow religious practices despite the fact that they go against existing laws.

There's the question of whether halal and/or kosher practices cause more harm to the animal.


Point one - I don't think there's much to discuss.

Point two - no, I don't think we should allow religious practices if they go against previous laws. This is opinion.

Point three - and really the only reason science was brought in to this discussion - well, Scouse linked to an article that claims they do cause more harm. Scientific opinion is more valid here than someone saying "meh, nah I think a cut across the throat is alright".

 

[Scouse]

And:

Point three - and really the only reason science was brought in to this discussion - well, Scouse linked to an article that claims they do cause more harm. Scientific opinion is more valid here than someone saying "meh, nah I think a cut across the throat is alright".

This is because science is the only system which takes an objective measurement of harm.

 

[MYstIC G]

Personally I think its really unfair that the authorities stop me from worshipping the God Quetzalcoatl by plucking the living heart from my sacrifices atop a stone pyramid. Its a fucking hate crime I tells ya.

Meh, what isn't these days. People and their feelings can fuck right off.

 

[old.Tohtori]

We're not discussing entirely the same thing.

There's the question of whether one should give a shit about the animals that are to become our food.

That was the point i was discussing here, which holds no bearing to scientific proof. That's why i asked if Scouse thought science had any basis in the validity in a clearly personal opinion discussion.

I asked it because Scouse used the "i have proofeded my view!" point.

Though the part which you said about "meh, i think it's alright to cut throat" is ofcourse also a valid opinion, as much as a "i don't think it is". Just comes down to personal views on if one gives a f*ck.

Now if we discussed if and how much pain it caused, or if it was equally cruel to cut a throat, THEN Scouses proof would come into play.

But as said, i asked due to Scouse seeming to take an upper ground on a non-basis.

Personal opinion is bullshit. Hold whatever opinion you like - but without scientific evidence to back it up then it should be treated with the contempt that it is deserving of

Your opinion on how meat is produced can be treated with equal contempt and to an equal scale as any other view. That personal opinion has no bearing on science.

Personal opinion doesn't come in one form of "it needs science to prove it", it also comes in the variation of taste and so forth.

Meats is murders is just an opinion that is neither right or wrong and nothing can prove it one way or other.

Unless we give animals same rights as humans ofc, in which case it does turn into murder

 

[nath]

You're misreading the thread. Scouse was undergoing some sort of forum character assassination and he was defending his position. He "proved" his position by showing that he's not a hypocrite in the sense that his morals aren't for nought, he follows through with them. You're bringing the whole science thing in to it is confusing the issue, that's not really what he meant in that specific scenario. I don't think I saw Scouse claim that his position on meat is scientifically based - only the position on how much pain different types of slaughter can cause to the animal.

As far as I know. Scouse can confirm or deny that.

 

[old.Tohtori]

You're misreading the thread. Scouse was undergoing some sort of forum character assassination and he was defending his position. He "proved" his position by showing that he's not a hypocrite in the sense that his morals aren't for nought, he follows through with them. You're bringing the whole science thing in to it is confusing the issue, that's not really what he meant in that specific scenario.

As far as I know. Scouse can confirm or deny that.

Ofcourse, if Scouse says that he didn't mean the scientific proof to give him some form of a better opinion (on what we discussed on "are you consistent on your no harm policy"), then ok. I never dismissed his opinion on animal cruelty, or his consistency(actually think i approved of it), simply that the scientific proof(link to some such) didn't have bearing on it and that the opinions are equal.

That's what i simply -asked- him originally though

I was basing my question on this(after it became a repetitive theme);

Open and transparent enough for you? It's not often I have to justify the fact that I prefer to behave as ethically as possible, and from a scientifically defensible position, to someone who freely admits he doesn't give a shit

Which ofcourse has the assumption i don't give a shit in it, but none of that. Just SEEMED(like i asked) to suggest that his view on it was better due to science.

 

[nath]

Ofcourse, if Scouse says that he didn't mean the scientific proof to give him some form of a better opinion (on what we discussed on "are you consistent on your no harm policy"), then ok. I never dismissed his opinion on animal cruelty, or his consistency(actually think i approved of it), simply that the scientific proof(link to some such) didn't have bearing on it and that the opinions are equal.

That's what i simply -asked- him originally though

Well I'm glad we've got that straight. Friendly criticism - your original question wasn't as clear as it could have been.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Well I'm glad we've got that straight. Friendly criticism - your original question wasn't as clear as it could have been.

True, should've made it clearer that i meant the discussion i was involved in. Thought it was implied, but safe then sorry i guess.

 

[Scouse]

You're misreading the thread

The reason I went "/sigh" originally wasn't that I thought Toht was misreading the thread - I think Toht read the thread perfectly - it was that I think Toht realised I was consistent in my views and decided to change what we were actually arguing about - because Toht wants to "win".

Doesn't really matter what argument he wins in any given thread, just that he feels like he's won it

Evidence: Has much on this page been anything to do with this thread?

 

[Ch3tan]

Would you care about the religious exception if the cruelty aspect was removed? So for example, if they butchered using an electric stun to the head first, followed by throat slighting? I think I posted earlier that that is what muslims and jews in NZ do. It's been proven that this knocks the animal out for a matter of minutes and is reversible if they are not butchered for what ever reason.

 

[nath]

Would you care about the religious exception if the cruelty aspect was removed?

I get the impression this is aimed at Scouse but I'm gunna answer it anyway.


Absolutely not.

 

[Ch3tan]

No it was aimed at all of you, despite Scouse thinking any view other than his is clumsy and obvious, I'm still going to probe his opinion as well

 

[Scouse]

Would you care about the religious exception if the cruelty aspect was removed?

Nope. Why would anyone care if the animals don't suffer?

The problem, as has been stated a million times*, is the cruelty. Finding different ways to ask the same question isn't going to trip me up, or anything gay like that






*number may not be scientifically verifiable

 

[Ch3tan]

I'm not trying to trip you up, stop being as paranoid as toht. I also found studies that showed that animals died quickly from a throat slit when looking for stuff earlier in this thread. Will try and dig it up.

Also the study that showed animals feel pain, it only showed brain activity did it not? Patterns they associated with pain for up to two minutes? I believe the counter argument was that the quick exit of blood from the brain causes instant unconsciousness, so the pain wasn't felt.

 

[Scouse]

Well, aside from entering into a search-through-the-science-literature competition (which is a job that New Scientist and the scientists they interviewed would already have done, and I CBA repeating), I can't really offer more.


Edit: As for the paranoia - it's a question that's been answered repeatedly and very clearly in the thread already, so can you blame me?

 

[DaGaffer]

Meh, what isn't these days. People and their feelings can fuck right off.

I know! And what was really annoying was they didn't mind me cutting out the hearts, it was that they wouldn't give me planning permission for the pyramid! Fucking bureaucrats.

 

[old.Tohtori]

The reason I went "/sigh" originally wasn't that I thought Toht was misreading the thread - I think Toht read the thread perfectly - it was that I think Toht realised I was consistent in my views and decided to change what we were actually arguing about - because Toht wants to "win".

Doesn't really matter what argument he wins in any given thread, just that he feels like he's won it

I don't need to win anything, it was a combination of misunderstanding and like nath said, poorly worded question. Could've been clearer in it, admitted, so let it go.

I was simply asking if you thought that scientific proof gave an opinion more validity in the matter that we discussed(mainly about your opinion on how animals should be killed).

I'm not trying to trip you up, stop being as paranoid as toht.

Ey! Healthy dose of paranoia will keep your arse covered against giant mashmallow men and the well documented, scientifically proven possibility of a zombie attack

 

[Scouse]

the well documented, scientifically proven possibility of a zombie attack

Does the fact that I quite wish for a zombie apocalypse put me at odds with any of my cruelty to animals views?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Does the fact that I quite wish for a zombie apocalypse put me at odds with any of my cruelty to animals views?

Hmm, well a zombie apocalypse would turn every living being into cattle, first by the virus and then by other living creatures.

So, in that scenario, everyone would be akin to cows.

Taking that into consideration and the normal view of "it's not nice to poke eachother with sharp objects", i think "cruelty to cattle is wrong" would become a prominent feature

(Oh and i forgot to say that i don't think "i don't give a f*ck" about animal cruelty, i just hold a bit different view on it. I'd prefer it to be quick, but as long as there's use for the death of the animal, i'm more or less ok with it )

 

[Scouse]

Surely you'd be alleviating pain with a cricket bat? Y'know. Doing good stuff, n'all...

 

[old.Tohtori]

Oh the zombies are a different matter really.

We can't eat them(well, no way to test that yet is there), so they aren't exactly animals. So in that sense, using a cricket bat to alleviate the pain of a suffering zombie isn't exactly animal kindness, but i think it might count as some form of a euthanasia

It's illegal though, so after the whole zombie apocalypse was over, we'd all get a hefty sentence

 

[Scouse]

i think it might count as some form of a euthanasia

I'm not necessarily opposed to that in all cases, so that's nice.

It's illegal though, so after the whole zombie apocalypse was over, we'd all get a hefty sentence

Arrested by zombie rozzers? No chance

 

[rynnor]

It's fuck all to do with religion and everything to do with animal cruelty - that you don't give a fuck about. "Free Range Nonsense"

Free range is nonsense because its not actually the best system for the welfare of the birds but everyone has an idealised image of it.

If we wanted to do the best thing for the animals welfare we would ban it.

http://www.fawc.org.uk/pdf/enriched-cages.pdf

 

[nath]

Does the fact that I quite wish for a zombie apocalypse put me at odds with any of my cruelty to animals views?

No. In all the zombie films I've seen, the infected leave animals alone so actually it fits in perfectly with your views.