Dutch May Outlaw Kosher and Halal Meat
Holland, home to "about 40,000 Jews and one million Muslims," looks set to ban the practices of religious slaughter of animals that are of central importance to observant members of both faiths. From the National Post's Holy Post religion blog (honest to goodness motto: "get down on your knees and blog"):
The bill by the small Animal Rights Party united both Jews and Muslims in protest because it would ban kosher and halal slaughter, which requires animals be conscious when killed.
European Union regulations say animals must be stunned before slaughter to minimize pain, but allow exceptions for the ancient religious traditions behind kosher and halal laws.
[…]
Dutch Jewish and Muslim leaders protested on Tuesday after the bill was passed by a wide margin of 116 votes to 30. The bill allows exceptions if religious leaders can prove that ritual slaughter is no more painful to animals than stunning.
But it was not clear how this could be proven, meaning it was unsure whether kosher and halal butchers could continue working in the Netherlands or not if the bill becomes law.
An American rabbi, Shmuel Herzfeld, reacts with charges of bigotry here.
Meanwhile, California is angering some residents of Chinese descent by considering a ban on shark fin soup, while China is angering some residents (presumably also of Chinese descent) by considering a ban on dog meat.
Baylen Linnekin is a lawyer and the executive director of Keep Food Legal, a nonprofit that promotes culinary freedom, the idea that people should be free to make and consume whatever commestibles they prefer. For more information and to join or donate, go here now.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
It's not the meat that's outlawed, it's the (unnecessary) method of obtaining the meat. Reason's headline honesty is celarly not improving.
did you RTFA? "kosher meat" = meat that has been killed in a particular way.
you can't have kosher meat that's not killed in a kosher way, because then it wouldn't be kosher meat!
herp derp derp
The physical nature of kosher meat and non-kosher meat are indistinguishable.
And of course I'm no more a fan of giving special rights to people on the basis of their religion than on the basis of their sexuality.
Not when it comes to chickens.
http://answers.yahoo.com/quest.....545AAvRT4n
You can slaughter a chicken the normal way and then soak and salt it to produce a physically indistinguishable meat.
I was simply adreesing the taste difference, not the method of execution.
"The physical nature of kosher meat and non-kosher meat are indistinguishable."
true. however, the spiritual natures of the two are not.
say what you will about the immorality of killing conscious animals, if i were a chicken i would much rather be killed by a jewish butcher than by a fox.
Civil law should not be based on spirituality, just physics and the sciences derived from it.
And I'd much rather be interrogated in Guantanamo than at an Egyptian black site. So?
How much can you elaborate on this?
Thankfully our religous liberties are protected from civil secular law by the 1st Amendment. Perhaps Tulpa would find himself more at home goose-stepping through the tulip fields or along the dikes in some wooden jack boots.
Only the ones that don't violate the rights of others. There's no freedom of religion defense to charges of rape, theft, or murder.
Animals don't have rights.
"Civil law should not be based on spirituality, just physics and the sciences derived from it."
no, it should be based on farcical aquatic ceremonies.
Except isn't the pro-ban side arguing this based on their spiritual empathy for animals and the suffering of those beasties? I'm confused as to what you're for or agin' here.
What physical law says whether it is better for animals to be stunned or conscious when they are slaughtered?
Right because shoving a electrode bar up its ass to be stunned doesn't hurt the animal either..
(anyone been electrocuted before? it freaking hurts man)..
Or by stuffing multiple animals in a cage smaller then one of the animals in it, also doesnt hurt the animal.
(remember when you over fill an elevator.. and it's taking longer then usual to get to your floor.. and you start to worry.. frig what if the elevator stalls..)
What this law is, it's a stab at those two religions. They themselves are bringing their own believes and saying you can't have yours because we are in power and our believes are these.
Welcome to dictatorcracy.
The physical nature of kosher meat and non-kosher meat are indistinguishable.
We disagree.
That smells like consequentialism to me. The process for obtaining a thing doesn't matter? Only the result?
That smells like consequentialism to me. The process for obtaining a thing doesn't matter? Only the result?
Yes.
The process may matter, but a ban on the process is not a ban on the result if the result is obtainable by other processes.
Of course it's not even that -- the bill doesn't ban the importation of kosher/halal meat.
To anyone for whom the process is applicable, the product is not the same, your protestations notwithstanding. Does any old cracker function as a communion wafer? Poll some Catholics, see what they say. If it did, why not go with Stoned Wheat Thins; they taste much, much more palatable.
Of course it's not even that -- the bill doesn't ban the importation of kosher/halal meat.
Which in turn indicates that the "problem" being tackled isn't really slaughter methods at all, but more likely just jerking around Jews and Muslims for the lulz.
According to the Code of Canon Law, any type of unleavened, unflavored wheat bread can be used for the eucharist. The use of wafers is simply an aesthetic tradition (which is not, by the way, universal -- when I was in Catholic school we occasionally had "agape Mass" which was supposed to emulate the early church, and they actually used a more normal-looking loaf).
So stoned wheat thins are in! Excellent.
Thanks for the correction/info.
But apparently you a fan of giving special rights on the basis of their species.
I will agree though, if animals have rights then whether you are slaughtering them for religious rights or not is irrelevant. Of course animals don't have rights so anybody should be able to slaughter them in any way they please for any reason.
*rites
this doesn't logically follow.
one can agree that
1) animals do not have rights
YET
2) people have a duty not to act in certain ways regarding animals
this is the basis, btw, for every state's laws regarding animal cruelty etc.
one can believe animals do not have rights and still think it should be illegal to torture a kitten, for example.
in my state, one can kill a pet for no reason whatsoever. i got a call once because a guy complained that his neighbor took his dog (not the complainants, the neighbor's) into the backyard and shot it in the head.
entirely legal
however, if the neighbor had skinned the dog alive, i would have arrested him for animal cruelty. and rightly so.
The whole notion that things "have" rights as some inherent property, rather than that people bestow rights out of the development of ethics, is silly. Pain is pain. By definition, nothing that feels pain likes it. So the badness there is the same regardless of what is feeling the pain.
Kosher slaughter was prescribed because at that time it was state of the art in humane slaughter. The rabbis who've reified the beliefs without probing the reasons for them have just gone down the dark hole religions tend to get to. I see no reason to privilege religious law makers over secular ones in determining the details. If modifying the method hurts the animals less, that is what both the religious and the secular laws intend.
we can analogize between animal cruelty laws and use of force laws (the latter as apply to both cops and non-cops).
in both cases, the best is the enemy of the good.
a person defending his property does not have to use the minimum amount of force possible to defend it. but his force must be reasonable and proportionate to the threat - that holds true for defending an auto from theft, or a home from invasion.
similarly, one doesn't have to use the absolute minimally cruel way to kill an animal or not do anything in day to day interactions with the animal that might be cruel in some way
but we can draw lines based on "reasonableness". and we do.
we had a case where a guy killed a wounded deer on the side of the road by SUBMERGING ITS HEAD UNDERWATER UNTIL IT DIED.
clearly, this is not the optimal way to commit deer euthanasia. otoh, the animal was clearly suffering, and the guy didn't have a knife or a gun , so he considered it his best option.
granted, the fact that a schoolbus full of children drove by and were horrified to see some guy on the side of the road drowning bambi, didn't help.
Letting people prepare and eat food that meets their religious obligations is giving them a "special right"?
Its not like Kosher and Halal is being forced into the gullets of non-believers. What's the 'special right' of being free to exercise your own religion without harassment or circumspection?
"Letting people prepare and eat food that meets their religious obligations is giving them a "special right"?
Yes it is, because exceptions have been made for them on the basis of their religion. Hence, they had a "special right". In Holland, this also goes for freedom of speech, which is limited in certain ways for non-religious people, while religious people have an extra protection under "freedom of religion" that supersedes the limits on freedom of speech.
"Its not like Kosher and Halal is being forced into the gullets of non-believers."
If you live in Europe, you would not be so sure of this claim. And the same goes for exercising religion without harassment. In certain parts of Europe, it is the non-religious (i'm trying to be P.C.) that are being harassed a whole lot more than the religious.
I don't see how this special 'exception' constitutes any 'right' other than freedom of religion.
And I'd like to see some examples of the 'persecution' of the non-religious, please, before accepting your characterization at face value.
The butcher has to yell "STOP RESISTING!" when he slaughters the animal.
win!^
Tulpa: confirmed as atheist authoritarian.
And now begins the ad hominem fountain.
Can I rent one of those for a party, like a chocolate fountain? Because that would be pretty funny.
Though I certainly expect some blowback from the doctrinaires who think setting one's cats on fire is none of the govt's business.
Can we still tase the cat to death if it doesn't follow our orders?
It doesn't have a right to get litter outside the shitbox. It refused to follow my lawful orders to clean it up, so I used lawful force to subdue it.
teehee!
Whatever happened to just using a squirt bottle?
FILLED WITH GASOLINE
Are you equating killing an animal for food with setting a cat on fire?
Only if the cat has a snowball of mass destruction.
No. In fact I have no problem with killing an animal for food. What I have a problem with is wanton infliction of pain in the process.
Tasers cause no pain at all. Or are humans not animals? Or are animals just more important than humans?
+999999999
There are some statists who view humans as lower on their scale of value than other animals.
As usual, you're dragging in a mosaic of unpopular positions of mine and distorting the fuck out of them, so all the conformist nonconformists around here can have a chuckle at the outsider. Pretty sad.
The way not to get stupid shit you say thrown back in your face? Don't say stupid shit.
You're the one that wants to play at being the asshole contrarian. This is part of the game.
Yes, this is exactly the reaction I would expect from the conformists. It's still disappointing to actually see it.
Where did I say it was OK to tase someone to death?
Where did I say it was OK to tase someone at all if they were merely "not following orders"?
I'll save you the trouble of googling: the answer is "nowhere". But you don't give a shit about the truth, you just care about looking funny and popular and shit. At least when people do this in high school or in politics they get money and power and sex; what do you get from doing it on a flerking blog comments section?
I disagree. I have learned much from Sugarfree over the last couple of years. That he is able to at once inpart knowledge and wisdom with humor is just the icing on the cake.
Is Tulpa turning into one of the goth kids in front of our eyes? Go back to your Britney Spears fairy tale, conformists.
And of course the only response from the H&R Axis of Glib (Warty, Epi, Sug) is an ad hom. Typical.
So you're Lonewacko now.
Do you know how to do anything else besides hurl ad homs? It's getting comical.
so you have a problem with the entirety of the animal kingdom.
Yes, there's no respect for rights of any sort in the animal kingdom. I didn't think libertarians supported modeling human behavior on what animals do, but maybe I'm just slow.
---"there's no respect for rights of any sort in the animal kingdom"---
For me, it's because I don't believe animals (other than humans) have rights.
Why should humans be any different? What is the characteristic of humans that enables them to be bearers of rights not bourn by other life forms?
because we have the gunz bitches!!! suck on it lower animals!!!!!
Are you going to go after those evil cranes who inflict wanton pain on fish?
Cats, some pack animals, and a few other notables will torture and play with their prey before the kill. Having seen my cat do this to an errant mouse, I can testify that it didn't appear as though the mouse was enjoying the experience.
Time for Mark Twain.
I love Twain. He was incisive and witty, and a cat-lover to boot. However, after having observed a cat hunt, I will stick with my opinion that in this case he was wrong...perhaps because of his misanthropy and love of cats he was unduly easy upon them.
Even Twain was not immune to sentiment.
You are correct, I think. My cats have always put out the chipmunks' eyes and torn off their skin. If they had thumbs, I'm sure they would figure out how to shove bamboo shoots under their nails, too.
Also,
Even Twain was not immune to sentiment.
"even"? He's always seemed extremely sentimental to me.
Not when it comes to the topic of people. He was sentimental in turns about his childhood on the Mississippi, but then again tore into quite a bit of that in his fiction.
Weasils are know to kill for sport without eating their kill.
Roosters fight and kill each other over dominance and access to females. The spectacle of the combat was the reason humans originally domesticated chickens. Meat and eggs are just a by-product
I think it was best said by Cracked:
They are going to be dead, I can assure you they won't care how they died.
No. In fact I have no problem with killing an animal for food. What I have a problem with is wanton infliction of pain in the process.
And your problem is my problem because...???
Tulpa equates "freedom of religion" with "freedom for atheists to use state power to discriminate against theists."
^THIS
Then you should prefer kosher slaughter, which inflicts minimal pain. Very sharp blades.
I was unaware of a significant problem with flaming cats. I guess the government is good for something. If not for flaming cat laws everything would've burnt down by now. Even stuff that belonged to people who paid their privatized fire department dues.
Good Lord--I've heard about this--cat juggling! Stop! Stop! Stop it!
How about squirrel launching?
actually, it is not uncommon for real fuckhead fuckstick kids to put cats in a sack and light the sack on fire. i know a detective who took such a case. the kids (in their infinite stupidity) video'd their torture and they got a STIFF fucking sentence for it.
as they should.
Well...it isn't.
I am neither Jewish nor Muslim but I love visiting Kosher Delis and halal butcher shops. I don't know why but I truly thing the meat tastes better when it is butchered this way. No, I do not think it is psychological on my part. It just plane tastes better.
I am still outraged I can't buy raw milk at Whole Foods anymore.
No, I do not think it is psychological on my part.
You wouldn't if it were.
Kosher beef is absolutely ridiculous--you can't eat any of the good parts.
It's like the Jews got together and said, "Hey, our wives overcook prime rib so that it's as tough as brisket anyway, so let's just eat the front parts."
Each to their own. Like I said and I am not Jewish or Muslim. I do eat foods that do not qualify in this way. I love giblit gravy on my poultry and love many kinds of shellfish as well. I VISIT kosher and halal shops - I do not LIVE there.
See above. Kosher chickens are sort of brined.
Animal Rights Party
You know who else was a vegetarian- animal lover with a European socialist political party?
Too soon!
Brigitte Bardot?
I thought she was a Gaullist.
If I were to actually take the question seriously, I'd probably go with Wouter Jacob Bos, retired leader of the Dutch Labour Party and prominent vegetarian.
Gustav von Struve?
Flavius Claudius Julianus Augustus?
Henri Wilhelm Philippus Elize van den Bergh van Eysinga?
Help me out, here. I'm scraping the bottom of the barrel. The names only get longer from here.
Dominique Strauss-Kahn?
If you're going to attempt Godwin (seriously or in jest), at least do it correctly. Mr. H was not a vegetarian.
Yes he was
My cousin is a vegan and I've seen her eat fried chicken.
this will be russell crowe's next target after he gets san francisco to ban the flaying of that other meat.
First, it's always difficult to force a sense of humanity on people who are convinced that their bronze-age god should have the final word, not the USDA.
And B, When living in a society, liberty can never be absolute--there are going to be at least a couple issues we can 99 percent agree that civilized people do. And in this case it's to stun before bleeding.
The purpose of Kosher and Halal slaying is to be as humane as possible to the animal. The slaying is quick and painless.
But you would prefer the sledgehammer to the head method. Barbarian.
Yeah and they like stoning adultresses as a "humane" form of execution, and using armored bulldozers as a "humane" method of notice of eviction.
Piss off,you blatant liar.
JOOOS!!!
Where's you outrage against my slandering of the muslims, you evangelical dipshit?
So when's the last time you read about Jews stoning adulterers?
I saw it in a documentary about some guy's life once a few years ago.
Not having political control over any area your group lived in during the 2000 years sure does help keep your hands clean of atrocities.
Of course, they've been making up for lost time during the past half century.
* I'm not picking on the Jews in particular here, as every religion and ideology and genetic group etc. has committed atrocities and will continue to do so until the sun absorbs the earth. I just get sick of hearing how superior and tolerant they are because they didn't commit any atrocities while they were a minority religion.
We prefer explosives as our method of eviction.
Whereas those bombs from Israeli F-15s dropped on civilian residences in Gaza are full of flowers and chocolate.
Don't forget cute little fuzzy bunnies.
If they were bunnies that exploded, yielding shrapnel of flowers and chocolate...
And don't forget the Israeli tanks hitting our hospitals. You can see the damage by the slightly disconnected phone wire on the upper portion of the building. Look, there it is, you see it now? Yes... that piece of cinderblock looks slightly discolored.
Need a good lawyer, Hamas?
I believe every word with total credulity.
So your position is that Israel has not killed civilians or destroyed civilian housing in Gaza.
And I'm the credulous one?
You're joking, right? The animal is alive and conscious while he bleeds out from the shochet's knife. The bolt ends his consciousness instantly. That's more humane.
Halal and kosher slaughter was only more humane a couple thousand years ago when the only alternative was to butcher alive or beat the stock to death with a rock. We have advanced since then.
The purpose of Kosher and Halal slaying is to be as humane as possible to the animal.
Fraid not. The same method could be employed on an unconscious animal, which would be more humane than doing it to a conscious animal.
I could be wrong but I was always under the impression that these slaughter practices were ritually motivated and meant to set the identity group apart from its 'barbaric' neighboring religous groups.
Yeah. Those Assyrians think they're so big with their stunning the goat before pulling its guts out. We'll show them!
Good for the Jews of 3000 years ago then.
That doesn't justify their descendants refusing to adopt less barbaric practices today.
So you would ban hunting with anything other than a mallet, I take it?
Cattle Decapitation
Also, why hasn't there been a Godwin yet?
Good point, Sir Warty.
No it isn't. Godwins are never a good point. My interest is just to try to turn this thread into an utter clusterfuck faster.
That's pretty metal.
It's platinum!
I heard it was an alloy of platinum and the Metalocalypse box-set.
Try harder!
If you think about it, it raises an interesting proposition. Given that we know what a mammaliaphile Hitler was, maybe his utter contempt for International Jewery was motivated by his compassion for poor defenseless animals being butchered in accordance with Judaism's strict kosher policies.
If that meme is ever adopted, we will no doubt live to see the day where Hitler's image is rehabilitated and he begins to be considered a man before his time among the real hardcore ALFies.
Plus, he built roads and stimulated the economy so everyone got back to work. I don't understand why everyone is so hard on the poor dude.
and he was an artist...
This dude has the leftist patron saint stamp ready to be notarized. All we need is to prove he only killed jews to save cows.
All we need is to prove he only killed jews to save cows.
Jews not eating pork causes more cows to be consumed. Plus it affects interstate commerce.
Ta-da.
Look, the Dutch irrationally hate Muslims. I have no doubt this motivates this.
First they came for the minaret's...
Yeah, probably, now that I think about it. Still, I'm disappointed in the lack of Godwining.
That's the Swiss, not the Dutch.
Ah jews and moslems finally coming together in their desire to painfully and inhumanely slaughter animals. Maybe they can collaborate on banning pork next.
Leave the animals alone, and concentrate on brutally decapitating each other, you two pathetically regressive religions.
See, Jews don't want to ban pork. It's not even banned in Israel. You're just a bigot.
Maybe they can collaborate on banning pork next.
"The Enemy of my Enemy..." etc
slaughter houses use a pneumatic gun which drives a steel bolt straight into the animals brain which instantly kills. the animal is concious when the gun is used. ez pleasy lemon squeezy
At least pigs are dead when their eyelids are removed by the Whizard? Series II Trimmer. (It's a fun google.)
So, the land of Anne Frank is doing something that sounds anti-Semitic. Don't they worry what people will think?
Maybe the devout Jews should go Daniel 1 on the Dutch and refuse to eat meat in protest.
Oh wait, that's no fun.
The result of this would be black market kosher / halal butcher shops.
Would they be hidden in attics?
Well played, sir.
Indeed. Back-alley -> Back-attic, it works perfectly.
HAH!
A cousin of mine spent half a shift in a turkey and chicken slaughterhouse. He left for lunch and never came back. Apparently, the worst part was the scary Mexicans in the kill-room.
A cousin of mine worked in a turkey kill-room for a couple of weeks. He said he got pretty good at it.
Do you know who else spent time in an industrial turkey killing operation, cooly immune to the fowl holocaust ?
Sarah Palin!
Basted in Blood
http://snl.allsilly.com/58105/.....Live-.aspx
My question, was there any hog on the menu?
http://pewforum.org/Religion-N.....attle.aspx
Or wait, were they barbecuing the Muslims? Now I'm confused...
So is it cool that some groups aren't getting preferential treatment anymore, or not cool that people are being denied food slaughtering freedoms? Someone help me, I'm starting to think!
So is it cool that some groups aren't getting preferential treatment anymore,
Who is getting preferential treatment when kosher/halal butchering is legal?
You're right. I suppose I was considering the law to be the status quo rather than the change to existing law.
If the only exceptions to the EU ordinance requiring animals be stunned are people of certain religious faiths, then people of those religious faiths are getting preferential treatment.
If my godless ass wishes to asphyxiate my hookerchicken while fully conscious prior to eating it, I should be permitted the same luxury as a follower of Abraham.
So if we ban all baseball shirts except Yankees shirts, no one is getting preferential treatment?
Does someone else want to slaughter animals in a specific way that is banned? No. Everybody else wants to kill animals as quickly, as inexpensively and in as great a number as can be managed. That's perfectly legal and they do it. What the hell do you think happens in an industrial slaughterhouse? Industrial slaughter.
Obviously people want to kill animals without zapping them unconscious first, otherwise the current law would be unnecessary.
And as we all know, there are no unnecessary laws.
So if we ban all baseball shirts except Yankees shirts, no one is getting preferential treatment?
Of course not, idiot.
At H&R, people may be libertarians, but they're not *doctrinaire* libertarians. Many of them are willing to have the government intervene in private affairs in extreme cases, like suppressing the animal-slaughter practices of Jews and Muslims.
So it's not like anyone here is some kind of extremist.
If we outlaw kosher and halal meat, then only outlaws will have kosher and halal meat.
Disgusting. I'm sure the outrage from conservatives will be deafening /sarc
Animals do not have rights. Only sentient beings have rights.
And with rights come responsibilities. Such as the responsibility for humans to slaughter their evening meal humanely.
Do lions slaughter their evening meal humanely?
To be fair, according to the right = responsibilities argument, that excludes creatures like lions, because they don't have rights (therefore, no responsibilities).
Lion cubs would disagree.
Circular. The only reason for this policy would be that animals have some rights, even if that right is only to be stunned before being eaten. I see little substantive difference in this regard between a lion vs a chicken or a cow.
The difference is that we don't expect animals to respect anyone's rights.
Kipling did:
Ye may kill for yourselves, and your mates, and your cubs as they need, and ye can;
But kill not for pleasure of killing, and seven times never kill Man!
again, false.
just because humans have a legal duty not to act certain ways towards animals does not imply that we are then recognizing that animals have rights.
If a law is not created for the purpose of rights protection, it shouldn't exist.
that's a nice assertion, but i'm going to disagree
They aren't sentient and are going to be dead so how could it possibly matter? I could understand being upset about torture of animals that are going to be forced to live in pain but these ones are going to be dead.
All animals are "going to be dead".
I meant immediately but you knew that.
It's not immediate in kosher slaughter.
relatively immediate
Relative to a lifetime, an Al Gore speech is over immediately after it starts. But it sure doesn't feel that way while you're listening to it.
Why no, no we didn't. You should know better than that.
I suppose dynamite might be more "humane" to a fish than hook, line and fillet knife.
The only 'responsibility' I have is to respect other peoples' rights. Not animals.
It's in the Bible!
Genesis 1:26
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
So you think setting fire to one's cat is none of the government's business.
I didn't realize it was the business of government to enforce morality.
Even for the pro-cruelty assholes here, this is an untenable position. There is a strong link between animal cruelty and serial killing. The animal torturer you defend today may kill your daughter tomorrow.
Yes, animals do have rights, at least here. We've codified anti-cruelty in the US, which establishes a right to not be tortured. Not a full set of rights, but rights nonetheless. Libertarianism should be about expanding rights.
There is a strong link between animal cruelty and serial killing.
Has this actually been rigorously studied? It's always struck me as a myth created as an argument for anti-cruelty laws.
And even if it were, a correlation between those who practice a non-rights-violating activity and rights-violating activity does not justify making the non-rights-violating activity illegal imho.
Of course, I think animals do have very limited rights to not have unnecessary pain inflicted on them.
What part of "dominion over" do you not understand?
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
You were better off citing Rikki-tikki-tavi.
false. animal cruelty is illegal, but not because animals have a "right not to be tortured".
we can sympathize, even empathize with animals, we can proscribe certain behaviors towards same. it doesn't follow that we assert or recognize that animals have rights
Exactly.
Just so that I'm clear on the subject: this means I can't go deer hunting in the EU, right?
Or can I, if only I club the deer in the head first?
You can't go deer hunting in the EU because you won't be allowed to own a rifle, compound bow, or anything more dangerous than a dull pencil.
OK, so I have to club it with a dull pencil. Got it.
It is also permitted to headbutt your quarry to death.
Wow. You're grossly ignorant even by H&R standards.
As a person who is Chinese. Shark Fin Soup is disgusting.
Birds Nest Soup FTW
As a non Chinese I concur, and it is filthy expensive.
But it is like nature's viagra. Shark fin soup, oysters, and asparagus eaten in tandem will make you cum on the nearest person. True story.
The Chinese think everything is an aphrodisiac, especially if it's an endangered species.
I'm pretty sure they were eating tiger penis a good while before the tiger became endangered.
The aspects of the animals seems like a more obvious motivation. Tigers, Sharks, Rhinos, all powerful, virile, creatures.
What does the guy who snags the tiger's penis eat? I'm gonna eat what he eats!
I think in fairness, and to please Tulpa, he probably stunned the tiger first.
The Truth loves it.
I guess I should link tothe whole damn thing, since it's sort of topical. Plus, this copy assigns us homework.
The bill allows exceptions if religious leaders can prove that ritual slaughter is no more painful to animals than stunning. But it was not clear how this could be proven.
Why don't they just ask the animals? You know, the ones who have consciousness and volition and rights, just like us humans.
Several observations:
Many upthread have made the claim that animals don't have rights. Humans are just another species of animals. Discuss.
Unwillingness to engage animal cruelty issues is the achilles heal of libertarianism. Sure, you can justify it using tortured logic (I'm looking at you, Bar Student), but of all the issue which libertarians could chose to STFU about, knowing that their absolutism is a PR negative, this is the most egregious.
It doesn't have to be, either. All but the most doctrinaire libertarians admit that children, unlike property, have rights, but their set of rights is more limited than adults'.
So the black and white thinking, that if we recognize any animal rights then we must recognize the full set of human rights, is already out the window.
It's the second-worst. Don't forget about the libertarians who make an issue out of making child porn legal.
As for cruelty, if it's ok to eat a deer that you gut-shot, then it's ok eat a goat that you hung upside down before cutting its throat.
There's no less painful alternative for obtaining venison than shooting/arrowing it. Here we're dealing with a case where certain groups are fully capable of eliminating pain from the slaughter but don't want to.
Arrowing?
Forget it, he's rolling.
s/b "Forget it, he's trolling."
Some archers are sticklers over the language. You don't fire a bow; you loose an arrow.
They're like gun nuts who correct the difference between clip and magazine.
Thanks, I knew there was a different term but couldn't remember it.
I'm not an archer, but....I have to agree with the sticklering. One "fires" a gun because there used to be actual fire involved. Even though the lighting is gone, the explosion is still sort of a related idea.
Plus, "loosing and arrow" just sounds cooler than "firing a bow".
what does one do with an airgun then?
Keep the neighbor's cats out of your petunias of course.
i had a coyote in the backyard a few times. spoke to my friendly neighborhood game officer. she said i could shoot it IF it was a self defense issue, or chasing after my pets. other than that, i'd need a special permit.
i guess the south park defense would have worked "it's coming right at us!". seriously though, the thing was damn skittish. i didn't want to hurt it. i just didn't want it in my backyard. eventually it went away
What are you talking about? Deer can be slaughtered the same way other animals are.
Just ignore him. Nothing good happens when you talk to Tulpa.
If the deer are in a pen, yes.
"There's no less painful alternative for obtaining venison than shooting/arrowing it."
There's no less painful alternative for obtaining kosher or halal meat than slaughtering a live animal. What's your fucking point?
However, if you grant animals rights, there exists a bit of a slippery slope. If an animal has rights, chief among those rights is not to be killed and eaten. Are we to outlaw meat altogether? Moreover, are we to prosecute incarcerate anything in the animal kingdom that is carnivorous? After all, carnivores deny other animals their rights to life. Beyond that, what is it that makes animals akin to humans on a rights scale? Is it the very existence of life or is it just being part of the kingdom Mammalia? If its life itself, then we can't eat plants either, nor build with lumber (unless harvested from dead trees, but we have to consent to have our organs donated, why not a tree?). Pretty soon, you get to the point we're it becomes absurd.
we'rewhere.
If an animal has rights, chief among those rights is not to be killed and eaten.
Why does the existence of any right imply the existence of this one? More limited rights, such as the right not to have unnecessary pain inflicted, are certainly imaginable.
Why does the existence of any right imply the existence of this one? More limited rights, such as the right not to have unnecessary pain inflicted, are certainly imaginable.
Well, I would argue that the primary right, from which all other rights stem, is the right of life. (Right to life: as in "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not "pro-life").
Convicted murderers sentenced to death don't have a right to life, but they do have a right not to be executed in a cruel fashion.
It's cruel, then, to inflict pain when you don't *have* to, even if your infliction of pain is not because you *enjoy* inflicting pain? I just want to make sure I understand the argument you're making here.
I think in this fold of logic there's something being overlooked, or at least entirely thrown out the window as irrelevant by you, Tulpa, and yet many of the folks arguing on the other side don't seem to think that it's irrelevant. And that hidden nugget is this:
There's several reasons why I, were I a butcher or whatever the term is for the owner of a slaughterhouse, might not stun my beasties before killing them. Let's list a few: 1) I might not be able to afford a bolt-based stunner. Does that make it cruel? Is my cruelty a choice or a hard economic fact? 2) I might not know how to use such a stunner or its equivalent. That makes me incompetent, but, again, not necessary cruel. 3) I might be a sadistic bastard who does, yes, actually enjoy causing the pain. Cruel, cruel me. 4) I might be a religious fanatic who does this out of a sense of ethical and religious duty to my Divine Maker.
Your argument seems to be that none of these distinctions matter, that the act itself is cruel regardless of the intent. Is that really what you're saying? I'm asking because I don't think I agree -- in fact, I'm sure I don't -- but I've watched far too many reasoned arguments thrown away for the cheap shot to assume or make fun.
Yes but other species of animals haven't risen to the level of intelligence to have rights.
If they have rights then we shouldn't be able to kill them at all. Discuss.
Its not like I go around discussing animal rights all the time but in this case it is on topic.
I don't particularly care that much about laws protecting animals from mistreatment. I do have a problem with slaughter rules because they are going to be dead. If we can kill them it shouldn't matter how.
That's the problem we're running into. If the animals don't have rights, then why should there be laws prohibiting cruelty to them? If they do have rights, then what rights?
I personally come down on the side that anything which can feel pain has the right not to have it needlessly inflicted (i.e. setting dogs on fire), but I can't exactly square that using hardcore logic. I'd just like to think it's a point we've evolved to.
Sure, but there is a difference between behavior you or I think is appropriate and what should be illegal.
As a meat eater who doesn't care or question where it comes from it would be pretty hypocritical of me to complain about how they are slaughtered. I saw a wild pig slaughtered by tribesmen in Borneo but besides fish that is all.
If the animals don't have rights, then why should there be laws prohibiting cruelty to them?
Those laws apply to humans only, of course, who (unlike animals) have volition and morality and reason. It's not for the animals' benefit that we humans enact such laws. It's for our own (depending on one's particular culture). Ironically, the more primitive the culture, the less time its members waste in considering whether animals have rights. They're what's for dinner.
They also have fewer options available to minimize the pain to the animals they slaughter.
Primitive cultures also tend to be pretty horrid on "liberty" issues in general, so it's kind of funny that you're citing their ways as some sort of superior wisdom.
"They also have fewer options available to minimize the pain to the animals they slaughter."
Really? Primitive cultures don't have access to large rocks or clubs? (European Union regulations say animals must be stunned before slaughter to minimize pain.)
"liberty issues...it's kind of funny that you're citing their ways as some sort of superior wisdom."
Try to focus. We're discussing animals' rights. Animals don't have "liberty." What I wrote was: "Ironically, the more primitive the culture, the less time its members waste in considering whether animals have rights." In other words, some westerners consider themselves superior to primitive cultures because of their (the westerners') mistaken belief that animals have rights. Primitive cultures have no such delusions. They just get on with it.
Imagine all this hand-wringing over humane methods of capital punishment when we could just club the condemned to death! \end{sarcasm}
It ain't a painless thing to do.
I'm not really sure what your point is with the primitive cultures if you're not arguing that we should look to them for ideas of how to handle this. They don't "waste time" worrying about the rights of members of opposing tribes or people the chief doesn't like either.
Again, try to focus. I'll type it in caps for you.
ANIMALS DON'T HAVE RIGHTS. PRIMITIVE CULTURES UNDERSTAND THIS. IRONICALLY, SOME "ADVANCED" CULTURES DON'T.
Hope this helps.
If the animals don't have rights, then why should there be laws prohibiting cruelty to them?
I say there shouldn't be laws prohibiting cruelty to your own property. The "proto-serial killer" style animal torture is usually done to someone else's property. I've never had a problem with draconian punishment for property crime or using lethal violence to protect property.
A lot of the cats that get abused are strays who are essentially abandoned property at this point. And of course there are plenty of wild animals like squirrels, birds, and mice that people have access to that are no one's property.
Squirrels and native birds are property. Squirrels and non-migratory birds belong to the people of the state in which they reside. The fucking feds claim ownership over migratory birds. "Invasive" birds can usually be killed on sight w/ no bag limit.
Nigel Powers: All right. Goldmember. Don't play the laughing boy. There's only two things I hate in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures. and the Dutch.
Goldmember: What? Take the fahza away! Dutch hater! And now, it is time to say goodbye. Dr. Evil's orders. Which, for you, is bad news bears,
I would think shock would set in rather quickly when a throat is slit, and there would be very little pain. As Ratbert would say "I'm more of an idea rat", so I'm not the one to work this out. Anyone feel like performing their own experiment on this topic?
I'll be sure to send your posthumous regards to the recipient of your choice.
The trick is the technical detail: are you cutting the vein, the artery, or both?
If it's the artery, then the animal loses consciousness in about ten seconds.
Wait a second...
So what you're saying is, if I'd killed all my victims in their sleep, with a pneumatic bolt or whatever... then it would have been OK? (@#)*$ hell. No one ever told me that 'humane' means, "killing and butchering things in a *nice* way"
Officer Baboon (to Lion): You are being charged with aggravated assault, possession of a prohibited assault claw and civil rights intimidation of a gazelle. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say or do can and will be held against you in a court of law.
Lion: What the--I'm just having my lunch!
Officer Baboon: You have the right to speak to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.
Lion: This is crazy! I'm a law-abiding lion. (pointing to gazelle) That's a gazelle. Lunch!
Officer Baboon: Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?
Lion: Get your hands off me, cracker!
Animal rights and cruelty laws are a sticky subject, from a libertarian pov, I just happen to think you're a dick if you don't think animals should not be subjected to undue pain and suffering.
Of course, I've lived with animals my whole life, and was a vegetarian for a number of years, so I've got that going on. I just don't know how you can see an animal being hurt and not realise that it sucks for them. If you have no empathy for other creatures, even those with no "rights", I kinda wonder what's wrong with you.
I'm all in favor of traditional cultural uses of animals regardless of whether some pussy thinks it's "cruelty".
How about novel "uses" of animals that individuals come up with?
ie, if there's a cultural tradition of setting animals on fire (and yes there are traditions where this is done as a sacrifice ritual), you appear to be OK with that, but if some kid decides it would be funny to set a cat on fire on his own, apart from any cultural tradition, would you approve of that?
I'm not sure. I have an inability or lack the maturity to abstract from a hypothetical to a prinicple, i.e. "at what point should suffering of an animal or minor(inflicted by a guardian in this case) be legally allowed?" I prefer to just chant, "NAP! NAP!"
I go out of my way not to abuse or kill lesser creatures who have not invaded my home. Do I eat some of their relatives? Yes. Do I think they have rights? No. Do I think people who torture animals for pleasure are scumbags? Yes. Do I think they should be prosecuted? No. Ostracized and publicly scorned? Yes.
do you still hear the screaming of the lambs, clarice?
I ate her pancreas with some refried beans and a nice Dos Equis.
Let's imagine a religion that has for one its practices, the ritual torture of animals for 7 days before the animal can be killed and eaten. Or a religion that allows for the torture of its children (well, we don't have to imagine with female genital mutilation). At what point would you argue that religious freedom is not absolute? Or would you?
Hypotheticals will get you nowhere my dear.
Wow, I'm so intimidated by the online chest hair curling out of your shirt. See Um's point above about hypotheticals and principles. Or should we just have a cage fight and get this over with?
If you're concerned about someone else's or some animal's suffering, that hardly makes you a pussy. Whining about the fact you can't torture something as much as you want, makes you not just a pussy, but a callous dick.
Preach it!!
Animal rights people consider horseback riding "torture" for the horse.Animal "cruelty" is totally fucking relative.
I have no problem with circuses, cockfighting,hare coursing, rodeos, trapping, Santeria chicken sacrifices, grilling a steak etc. Fuck you for telling people their culture is wrong.
my favorites are the ones who say using the word "pet" is specist and they are 'animal companions" lol
Hey, don't diss my class feature!
Yeah, in my culture, a fatwah is just what we do. Fuck you for telling me my culture is wrong.
I second that emotion!
and let's be clear. logically, and legally speaking, one does not have to believe animals have rights in order to believe humans have a duty not to be (unduly) cruel in their treatment of same.
that is the logical basis for animal cruelty laws , and it's a sound basis.
Locusts are kosher, too. It must be interesting to visit a kosher locust slaughterhouse.
There is green goo all over the walls.
The main fallacy is the most slaughter is done by a bolt smacking the head of the beast. However, too often there is a problem of miss-alignment and so the beast must suffer and have its head receive another bolt.
If that isn't torture, I don't know what is. Both Halal and Kosher slaughter are swift and sure. The pain is minimal and when done properly one stroke of the knife is sufficient. This does not beg the question of what obscene conditions the animals are being raised.
Looks like some libertarians are against "special" privileges for homosexual marriages, but want special privileges for religion. Why don't religions have to follow the law? This is a clear case of traditionalism trumping logic.
Why should there be a law in the first place?
thank you
I have worked on the kill floor of a small butcher in Idaho. We used a .22 caliber rifle to shoot the animals in the head. This didnt kill them. It only stunned them enough to be hung by a hind leg and stuck in the jugular so the heart would pump out as much blood as possible till they died. The stun bolt used in large slaughterhouses does the same thing. It is designed to stun, not kill. The animal must be bled out before death.
ah isht. I posted this as a reply by mistake.. here we go again.
Right because shoving a electrode bar up its ass to be stunned doesn't hurt the animal either..
(anyone been electrocuted before? it freaking hurts man)..
Or by stuffing multiple animals in a cage smaller then one of the animals in it, also doesnt hurt the animal.
(remember when you over fill an elevator.. and it's taking longer then usual to get to your floor.. and you start to worry.. frig what if the elevator stalls..)
What this law is, it's a stab at those two religions. They themselves are bringing their own believes and saying you can't have yours because we are in power and our believes are these.
Welcome to dictatorcracy.
Makkah Market is one of the most trusted Halal Meat suppliers in the US that provides food permitted under the Islamic Dietary Guidelines with assurance of delightful flavor.
Halal Meat