Belgium bans kosher and halal animal slaughtering methods

Apr 3, 2018
1,312
607
250
If this were as conclusive as you argue then you wouldn't need to use "seems to" in your assignment of hate.

For giggles, I've CTRL+F'd for "Hate" in this thread and the only times I get a result in a @Dunki comment is when they are quoting someone else accusing them of hate, or when they are using the term 'whatever'.

This is, of course, the way things go these days - invest effort on trying to classify thing as 'hate' or '-phobic' so it can be dismissed outright and faux-moral high-ground can be claimed.
I quoted his posts that show very likely bias and you counter with
"I searched for the word hate and dunki didnt use it"?

Ok bro, you got me, I can't compete with that thought process.
 
Oct 24, 2017
5,672
4,385
335
The study was done by Professor Schultz and his colleague Dr. Hazim of the Hanover University. The islamic site was just one of many site who cite this study.

During normal animal slaughter in the EU animals are also still alive and just unconscious. There is no difference.

But i have to say it again..."halal" killing methods without stunning the animal before should be forbidden in the EU. Unfortunately this is still the case for about 10-30% of the animals, depending on the country.

I really understand where you coming from and i'm absolutely against medieval methods of killing animals (stunned or not), but you have to go with the facts here.
There are studies for and against almost everything. This for example from the year 2009 shows

Brain signals have shown that calves do appear to feel pain when slaughtered according to Jewish and Muslim religious law, strengthening the case for adapting the practices to make them more humane.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17972-animals-feel-the-pain-of-religious-slaughter/

Here it is also described that electric stunning which is forbidden by the UK authority of Halal food would solve this problem instantly. Again with halal slaughtering medical experts have to check if the animal is still alive until the religious process chanting etc has been completed.
 
Jul 16, 2017
761
564
335
While I don't agree with @Dunki 's emotional tone, I can certainly understand his frustration with your boneheaded dishonest rhetoric. You've failed to formulate even one single argument as to why these religious practices are necessary. Different people believe a lot of different things, so merely referencing religious dogma ain't sufficient to defend these archaic slaughtering practices in a pluralistic western society.
Yes everyone becomes a animal rights activist when Halal meat is involved , I've said it before but just for you I'll say it again .. you must be having difficulties keeping up.

The method used in the UK has been given an acception by the Government as it's done in the most humane way possible as recognised by the biggest Animal Rights group on the UK .. the RSPCA aswell as the HFA who oversee how Halal meat is processed. You can make your argument about not letting the animal feel any pain before it dies but at the end of the day most people here don't give a shit how meat gets on their plate . But hey when Muslims need to eat you guys turn into PETA .. it's funny and sad as the same time

You wouldn't defend gender discrimination, or any other deplorable practices for religious reasons, would you? I mean, if my religious beliefs forbid blood transfusions (as is the case for Jehovah's Witnesses) it's not my right as a parent to let my children die an unnecessary death only because of my religious dogma. There's simply no reason to believe that things should be handled differently when it comes to slaughtering practices and food consumption.
Are humans dying because Halal Slaughter Houses are in operation , trying coming up with an example that's not to outlandish as that . It's a very weak attempt.


Religious beliefs do not automatically supersede other ethical concerns such as animal rights. So instead of throwing around with accusation of Islamophobia how about you come up with an actual argument? As it stands you're merely coming across ass a condescending ignoramus who's not the slightest bit interested in actually discussing the legislative and ethical implications of this particular situation. You'd rather dismiss valid concerns with blind accusations because you're unable to formulate a cohesive argument on your own.
Oh bobo I'm not thowing around accusations I'm stating facts about @Dunki . There is almost no valid argument for not allowing people to eat halal meat that has been stunned before slaughter.

I'm sure on Thanksgiving you guys are like

" Hmm I hope this turkey , who's organs I've ripped out , thrown in abit of seasoning and stuffed with sausages was killed humanely .. before I stuff it in the ovan for 2 hours and shit it out in a days time"

I think I've found the true virtue signalers

Lool
 
Likes: luigimario
Oct 24, 2017
5,672
4,385
335
The method used in the UK has been given an acception by the Government as it's done in the most humane way possible as recognised by the biggest Animal Rights group on the UK .. the RSPCA aswell as the HFA who oversee how Halal meat is processed. You can make your argument about not letting the animal feel any pain before it dies but at the end of the day most people here don't give a shit how meat gets on their plate . But hey when Muslims need to eat you guys turn into PETA .. it's funny and sad as the same time
And this is wrong no matter how often you say it.

It is accepted because of religious freedom. It is an exception that they allow this. Not because the animal does not feel anything. Again the animal HAS to be alive during the slaughtering and the religious process. They stun it so it can not move anymore. The brain still experiences the pain etc.

Imagine you would be stunned so you can not move and then someone cuts your throat while hanging up to bleed out. You still experience the horror you just can not react anymore
 
Last edited:
Sep 17, 2012
8,477
436
520
Usually best way to kill the animal without suffering would be a gunshot to the head. If you miss though and animal panics and gets imjured you're screwed.
 
Feb 2, 2018
367
326
215
There are studies for and against almost everything. This for example from the year 2009 shows:

"Brain signals have shown that calves do appear to feel pain when slaughtered according to Jewish and Muslim religious law, strengthening the case for adapting the practices to make them more humane. "

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17972-animals-feel-the-pain-of-religious-slaughter/

Here it is also described that electric stunning which is forbidden by the UK authority of Halal food would solve this problem instantly. Again with halal slaughtering medical experts have to check if the animal is still alive until the religious process chanting etc has been completed.
That is out of context. The part you quoted refers to slaughtering animals without stunning them. I've already said countless times that without stunning any slaughtering, especially the medieval and cruel methods like the jewish or muslim ones should be forbidden without a single exception.

Despite that the fact remains that in general about 85% of the animals, which get slaughter the "halal" way, are stunned before killed. These procedure is not better or worse then the conventional killing of animals.

I think you misunderstand the term "stun". Of course the animals are alive after it they were stunned and before they are killed. But so are you before you get put on an operating table and some doctor cuts you open to remove you lungs or you heart to give you a new one all while you experience no pain at all during the process.

What most people don't seem to realize is that in Belgium the animals could be slaughtered without stunning them. This finally changes now, which is good. Hopefully the rest of Belgium will impose this law, too. To finish this i can understand why most people are against halal slaughtering, because they know the pictures and videos of how it's done in muslim countries and they have all the right to be against such medieval slaughtering without stunning them prior to cutting their throat.
 
Last edited:
Oct 24, 2017
5,672
4,385
335
That is out of context. The part you quoted refers to slaughtering animals without stunning them. I've already said countless times that without stunning any slaughtering, especially the medieval and cruel methods like the jewish or muslim ones should be forbidden without a single exception.

Despite that the fact remains that in general about 85% of the animals, which get slaughter the "halal" way, are stunned before killed. These procedure is not better or worse then the conventional killing of animals.

I think you misunderstand the term "stun". Of course the animals are alive after it they were stunned and before they are killed. But so are you before you get put on an operating table and some doctor cuts you open to remove you lungs or you heart to give you a new one all while you experience no pain at all during the process.

What most people don't seem to realize is that in Belgium the animals could be slaughtered without stunning them. This finally changes now, which is good. Hopefully the rest of Belgium will impose this law, too. To finish this i can understand why most people are against halal slaughtering, because they know the pictures and videos of how it's done in muslim countries and they have all the right to be against such medieval slaughtering without stunning them prior to cutting their throat.

Does Halal Food Authority allow stunning of birds and animals?
Yes, however, one has to be reminded that HFA has always maintained “no stunning to kill”.
  1. Captive Bolt Stunning – proscribed – prohibited
  2. Percussion Stunning – proscribed – prohibited (although above procedures for cattle are allowed by some Ulema’s in Africa & Germany)
  3. Gas Stunning – proscribed – prohibited (although Turkish Ulema’s have approved this method for pre-slaughtering of chicken)
  4. Halal Food Authority allows controlled electric stun-with-minuscule amperage, with official Veterinary Surgeon validating that the animal or the birds do not die prior to slaughtering.
There are two types of electric stunning that Halal Food Authority approves:
  1. Water-bath Stun – for Poultry
  2. Electric-Tong Stun – for Ovine meat

Furthermore in France alone it was 32% in 2012 which by now should be at least 50%. In Germany there are no statistics because Germany does not care about it
 
Feb 2, 2018
367
326
215
Does Halal Food Authority allow stunning of birds and animals?
Yes, however, one has to be reminded that HFA has always maintained “no stunning to kill”.
  1. Captive Bolt Stunning – proscribed – prohibited
  2. Percussion Stunning – proscribed – prohibited (although above procedures for cattle are allowed by some Ulema’s in Africa & Germany)
  3. Gas Stunning – proscribed – prohibited (although Turkish Ulema’s have approved this method for pre-slaughtering of chicken)
  4. Halal Food Authority allows controlled electric stun-with-minuscule amperage, with official Veterinary Surgeon validating that the animal or the birds do not die prior to slaughtering.
There are two types of electric stunning that Halal Food Authority approves:
  1. Water-bath Stun – for Poultry
  2. Electric-Tong Stun – for Ovine meat

Furthermore in France alone it was 32% in 2012 which by now should be at least 50%. In Germany there are no statistics because Germany does not care about it
What are you trying to tell me here?

I already said that any religious slaughtering of animals is bullshit and should be prohibited. But that's just my personal opinion. Otherwise i've only stated the facts and numbers that are available to me. If the animals get unconscious due to water-bath stuns or electric-tong stuns than that's acceptable and should be the standard if the animals feel no pain during and after the stun as well as when getting killed.

Of course many countries should be way more aggressive and prohibit animal slaughter without stuns. And yes, i know that there are stupid non-comprehensible reasons like freedom of religion is above animal welfare, which is disgusting and outdated. Hopefully the northern region of Belgium is just the start and many other regions and countries will follow and enforce laws to get rid of religious slaughtering without proper stun techniques.
 
Last edited:
Oct 24, 2017
5,672
4,385
335
What are you trying to tell me here?

I already said that any religious slaughtering of animals is bullshit and should be prohibited. But that's just my personal opinion. Otherwise i've only stated the facts and numbers that are available to me. If the animals get unconscious due to water-bath stuns or electric-tong stuns than that's acceptable and should be the standard if the animals feel no pain during and after the stun as well as when getting killed.

Of course many countries should be way more aggressive and prohibit animal slaughter without stuns. And yes, i know that there are stupid non-comprehensible reasons like freedom of religion is above animal welfare, which is disgusting and outdated. Hopefully the northern region of Belgium is just the start and many other regions and countries will follow and enforce laws to get rid of religious slaughtering without proper stun techniques.
The problem I have is the 85% this number does not say anything at all. This 85% is about halal practises because yes they are stunned but they are still and have to be alive during the religous process. So the 85% is just an excuse like @AfricanKing is using to make this a no big deal situation.
 
Feb 2, 2018
367
326
215
The problem I have is the 85% this number does not say anything at all. This 85% is about halal practises because yes they are stunned but they are still and have to be alive during the religous process. So the 85% is just an excuse like @AfricanKing is using to make this a no big deal situation.
A stunned animal is alive but doesn't feel pain when getting killed, which is far better than just killing it.

I just checked again and the 85% is bullshit. So i have to correct myself (and @AfricanKing ). The number was for UK only, but where i've got the number it was not stated that it was only for the UK. Actually the number is much smaller than 85% for Europe. I can only guess but when we only take religious killing of animal into accountthen the number is appr. ~10-20%. :messenger_astonished:

Here's a map (last updated June 2018, so the new region of Belgium is not in there): https://www.loc.gov/law/help/religious-slaughter/map.pdf

Every orange country allows for religious slaughtering without prior stunning.

And here's the full report: https://www.loc.gov/law/help/religious-slaughter/religious-slaughter-europe.pdf


In the end i can only repeat what i already said and i hope that other all other regions and countries marked orange on this map stop this madness and get rid of this brutal medieval slaughtering.
 
Last edited:
Sep 4, 2018
1,477
1,409
235
this is pretty sad

i've done some reading on kosher recently and it's fascinating just how many different points are emphasized to make sure the death is as quick and painless as possible. every single element is factored in, from the sharpness of the blade, to the way the killing stroke is delivered. so im kinda stunned it is clashing with laws intended on doing the same.

imo there should be no laws enforcing or restricting religious practice so long as no humans are getting hurt
 
Oct 24, 2017
5,672
4,385
335
this is pretty sad

i've done some reading on kosher recently and it's fascinating just how many different points are emphasized to make sure the death is as quick and painless as possible. every single element is factored in, from the sharpness of the blade, to the way the killing stroke is delivered. so im kinda stunned it is clashing with laws intended on doing the same.

imo there should be no laws enforcing or restricting religious practice so long as no humans are getting hurt
These laws existed before religion and religion has to adept to our laws not the other way around. This goes for this but also for many many other issues around religion. And I will note that I am talking about all religion.
 
Likes: danielberg
Dec 15, 2011
1,699
2,552
505
very likely bias and you counter with
"I searched for the word hate and dunki didnt use it"?
You argued you supported your claims with quotes. Your argument was false, because no such quotes exist. :unsure:
You now come back with another effort, instead of "seems like hate" you've gone for "very likely bias". :rolleyes:

Again, you're pushing an implication based on your interpretation and arguing as though it were objective fact.
 

strange headache

Fluctuat nec mergitur
Jan 14, 2018
1,123
4,271
465
You can make your argument about not letting the animal feel any pain before it dies but at the end of the day most people here don't give a shit how meat gets on their plate.
Which is exactly the reason why said legislation has been made, as I've explained above.

But hey when Muslims need to eat you guys turn into PETA .. it's funny and sad as the same time.
The only things that's sad are your baseless assumptions about the people involved in this discussion. I certainly don't need to establish my "street cred" with a dishonest speaker in order to establish the validity of my arguments. Who I am has nothing to do with the discussion at hand as arguments should stand on their own. Contrary to you I don't need to make assumptions about your personality on order to make my argument.

Are humans dying because Halal Slaughter Houses are in operation , trying coming up with an example that's not to outlandish as that . It's a very weak attempt.
I'm not equating both situations, but merely pointing out that the principle of reasoning is exactly the same. Religious dogma is not an argument to uphold certain practices that are deemed archaic and in direct violation with how modern legislation defines animal rights. I have given you examples where other ethical concerns are deemed more important than religious tradition. Why should animals be an exception?

You are yet to provide one single argument as to why religious beliefs should override animal rights and you have yet to provide a single argument as to why these religious practices should be upheld contrary to other ethical concerns.

I'm sure on Thanksgiving you guys are like "Hmm I hope this turkey , who's organs I've ripped out , thrown in abit of seasoning and stuffed with sausages was killed humanely .. before I stuff it in the ovan for 2 hours and shit it out in a days time"
More baseless assumptions.

Indeed, that is an apt description of your general level of discourse.
 
Last edited:
Feb 21, 2018
2,359
1,480
270
Just speaking again from the Jewish perspective, I don't think its a practice that needs to be banned but there is room for improvement. There have been some scandals that you can read up on but from a Wiki article.

Efforts are made to improve the techniques used in slaughterhouses. Temple Grandin has worked closely with Jewish slaughterers to design handling systems for cattle, and has said: "When the cut is done correctly, the animal appears not to feel it. From an animal welfare standpoint, the major concern during ritual slaughter are the stressful and cruel methods of restraint (holding) that are used in some plants."[56] When shackling and hoisting is used, it is recommended [57] that cattle not be hoisted clear of the floor until they have had time to bleed out.
For Shechita the act itself may not be painful, but the pre killing can be stressful to the animal and cruel. So its not about stopping Shechita in total its about making it less cruel. And yes there are some Rabbi's who refuse to modernize, while there are others who want to make changes. I made another post before about an article from the Forward about a shochet talked about ways to improve Shechita and keep it humane and eliminate the cruelty.

Look at the end of the day the way we get our food isn't humane. Calling raising animals from birth to death solely for food, pumping them full of drugs and hormones to the point they are deformed, cramming them in small cages and then mass slaughtering them is hardly humane in itself. Sure we can try our best to make the process as humane as possible but in the end we are raising a living being for the sole purpose to tear apart its flesh and consume it.

I think the process can be improved and many within the Jewish community are open to it.

While Agriprocessors has been criticized by both secular and Jewish organizations for both its human and animal rights violations, the Jewish Orthodox Union (OU) made note to point out that the kashrut of a product is not contingent upon "the conditions in which it is produced.[citation needed] The OU's condonation of Agriprocessors as a possibly inhumane, yet appropriately glatt kosher company has led to discussion as to whether or not industrialized agriculture has undermined the place of halakha (Jewish law) in shechita as well as whether or not halakha has any place at all in Jewish ritual slaughter.[62]

Jonathan Safran Foer, a Jewish vegetarian, narrated the short documentary film If This Is Kosher..., which records what he considers abuses within the kosher meat industry.[63] Forums surrounding the ethical treatment of workers and animals in kosher slaughterhouses have inspired a revival of the small-scale, kosher-certified farms and slaughterhouses, which are gradually appearing throughout the United States.[64]
 
Sep 4, 2018
1,477
1,409
235
These laws existed before religion and religion has to adept to our laws not the other way around. This goes for this but also for many many other issues around religion. And I will note that I am talking about all religion.
before religion? laws that have been around for thousands of years? what laws are these?

imo if people were really concerned about animal welfare then there is no reason to eat meat at all, in fact, it only adds to pollution & the global carbon footprint. the whole thing is a ritual killing. we don't really need to eat any of it, and pretending one form of butchery is more humane than another doesn't make a whole lot of rational sense.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
6,250
6,227
805
Australia
Yes everyone becomes a animal rights activist when Halal meat is involved , I've said it before but just for you I'll say it again .. you must be having difficulties keeping up.

The method used in the UK has been given an acception by the Government as it's done in the most humane way possible as recognised by the biggest Animal Rights group on the UK .. the RSPCA aswell as the HFA who oversee how Halal meat is processed. You can make your argument about not letting the animal feel any pain before it dies but at the end of the day most people here don't give a shit how meat gets on their plate . But hey when Muslims need to eat you guys turn into PETA .. it's funny and sad as the same time



Are humans dying because Halal Slaughter Houses are in operation , trying coming up with an example that's not to outlandish as that . It's a very weak attempt.




Oh bobo I'm not thowing around accusations I'm stating facts about @Dunki . There is almost no valid argument for not allowing people to eat halal meat that has been stunned before slaughter.

I'm sure on Thanksgiving you guys are like

" Hmm I hope this turkey , who's organs I've ripped out , thrown in abit of seasoning and stuffed with sausages was killed humanely .. before I stuff it in the ovan for 2 hours and shit it out in a days time"

I think I've found the true virtue signalers

Lool
You’re confusing needs with wants. Muslims don’t need to eat halal meat, they want to because of archaic, irrational beliefs. I care more about animal suffering than religious dogma.
 
Last edited:
Jul 16, 2017
761
564
335
The only things that's sad are your baseless assumptions about the people involved in this discussion. I certainly don't need to establish my "street cred" with a dishonest speaker in order to establish the validity of my arguments. Who I am has nothing to do with the discussion at hand as arguments should stand on their own. Contrary to you I don't need to make assumptions about your personality on order to make my argument.
Hardly baseless when the only times animal rights comes up is when animals breed to be food is an issue for select few only because Muslims are involed it's transparent and very obvious most people are only here to virtue signal.


I'm not equating both situations, but merely pointing out that the principle of reasoning is exactly the same. Religious dogma is not an argument to uphold certain practices that are deemed archaic and in direct violation with how modern legislation defines animal rights. I have given you examples where other ethical concerns are deemed more important than religious tradition. Why should animals be an exception?

You are yet to provide one single argument as to why religious beliefs should override animal rights and you have yet to provide a single argument as to why these religious practices should be upheld contrary to other ethical concerns.
As posted above it's very subjective if you want to start talking about animal rights then why even bother entertaining the fact that they are being killed in the first place for for the meat eaters on the world. But no that's not what your after it's only how they are being killed .. yeah so much for an animal rights activist you are.



Indeed, that is an apt description of your general level of discourse.
Lol


You’re confusing needs with wants. Muslims don’t need to eat halal meat, they want to because of archaic, irrational beliefs. I care more about animal suffering than religious dogma.
According to their religion they do need to eat halal food. You can make that same lame duck excuse with any aspect of any faith it gets you no where
 
Last edited:
Jul 16, 2017
761
564
335
Can you explain why you think religious beliefs should take precedence above all else? I'm really struggling to understand your thought process here.
There's a reason as to why governments make exceptions to the law like in the UK. It comes down to understanding the importance of religion in people's lives ( to a certain degree) . The UK is a highly diverse population with people of all faiths and our government know this and wants us to express our religion with very little barriers in the way , hence why you need to compromise or in our case set guidelines for Slaughter Houses. No one is saying religion has to supercede above all else but there is always room for both to coexist. Which is why you don't find this argument in the UK . The biggest animal rights group here has even given its approval for the method used .
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
6,250
6,227
805
Australia
There's a reason as to why governments make exceptions to the law like in the UK. It comes down to understanding the importance of religion in people's lives ( to a certain degree) . The UK is a highly diverse population with people of all faiths and our government know this and wants us to express our religion with very little barriers in the way , hence why you need to compromise or in our case set guidelines for Slaughter Houses. No one is saying religion has to supercede above all else but there is always room for both to coexist. Which is why you don't find this argument in the UK . The biggest animal rights group here has even given its approval for the method used .
Are there any examples for which you think laws or other social standards should take precedence over religious beliefs?
 
May 15, 2014
782
115
285
It's not that the jewish or muslim population are going to notice a single difference in taste anyway. Belgium just became a little more modern, good for you.
 
Oct 24, 2017
5,672
4,385
335
There's a reason as to why governments make exceptions to the law like in the UK. It comes down to understanding the importance of religion in people's lives ( to a certain degree) . The UK is a highly diverse population with people of all faiths and our government know this and wants us to express our religion with very little barriers in the way , hence why you need to compromise or in our case set guidelines for Slaughter Houses. No one is saying religion has to supercede above all else but there is always room for both to coexist. Which is why you don't find this argument in the UK . The biggest animal rights group here has even given its approval for the method used .
Our constitution and laws should stay above everything else even the Government. Also State and Religion should be 100% separated at all costs. And no there should be no false tolerance regarding religious practises that are not conform with our laws. This goes for food, for equality, for acceptance of LGBT people, for rituals like child marriages, female circumcision and so on.

This also should go as far as not allowing ANY religious objects or symbols in State buildings like schools, state offices and so on. And yes this also goes for crosses but also Hijabs, Kippas etc. No exception. In your free time as a Teacher for example you are free to wear crosses or a Hijab but not during your time as teacher in schools.

They do not co exist they always should play a subordinated role and nothing else.
 
May 4, 2005
11,788
905
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
Hardly baseless when the only times animal rights comes up is when animals breed to be food is an issue for select few only because Muslims are involed it's transparent and very obvious most people are only here to virtue signal.
Is this so? I am against Halal killing methods, but I am also against shreding male chickens and am in favour of much much stricter laws on how to keep pigs. Sure, there might be people who are just against kosher / halal slaughtering methods because they hate muslims and jews, but do not get carried away here, for most, this is not the only issue, but a big one, because it does not even have any justification based in reality (whereas the inhumane conditions under which pigs are kept and the shreding of male chicken infants at least has a measurable monetary benefit for the people involved. Which is no good reason to torture living beings, but at least is based in reality, rather than some fairytale beliefs).
 

eot

Member
Apr 13, 2012
9,668
140
440
Horrible if true. They have a right to slaughter their animals (property) in whatever humane way they want. I don't believe the jewish or muslim way gives much pain to the animal.
They don't have a right to do whatever they want to animals. Give me a break.

What a strange thing to add on , why does it bother you how someone else eats food , have you decided that you want to attack Islam down to the very basic need of just eating . We're all human , once you start going down that path it's clear where your true intentions are.
I'd welcome harsher regulation on the meat industry, bring it on please. It has nothing to do with religion for me, but religion is a shitty excuse for anything and has no place informing legislation in a modern society.
 
Last edited:
Aug 2, 2015
4,697
325
335
Well Jews have been doing circumcission and Kosher food in Europe for over a thousand years and you never heard about laws against it.

Now all of a sudden with the explosion of the Muslim population across Europe, Europe is trying to enact laws against these practices. So if it wasn't an issue when Jews were there, but it is now it makes me put 2 and 2 together to see this as more of an attack on the muslim population.
No, it proves the reverse. There always were anti-semitic notions in Europe and Muslims were also seen as problematic for thousand of years and yet nobody introduced those laws. They are introduced now because we're at the point into our civilization when we care about animal suffering. Before we didn't give a damn and there were no laws that took into account animals' pain
 
Oct 24, 2017
5,672
4,385
335
No, it proves the reverse. There always were anti-semitic notions in Europe and Muslims were also seen as problematic for thousand of years and yet nobody introduced those laws. They are introduced now because we're at the point into our civilization when we care about animal suffering. Before we didn't give a damn and there were no laws that took into account animals' pain
No they now come into place before it was not big deal back then. With the more and more growing muslim population these have become real issues. Like the raise of Child marriages in Germany for example. Same goes for he constant growing of anti semitic accidents and crimes done by the muslim population.

What we need are CLEAR rules hat no radical religious thinking and behaviour is tolerated in Europe. Religion has to play a subordinated role and nothing else.
 
Last edited:

strange headache

Fluctuat nec mergitur
Jan 14, 2018
1,123
4,271
465
Hardly baseless when the only times animal rights comes up is when animals breed to be food is an issue for select few only because Muslims are involed it's transparent and very obvious most people are only here to virtue signal.
Yeah yeah, you keep repeating yourself. Still waiting on any kind of argument from your side.

As posted above it's very subjective if you want to start talking about animal rights then why even bother entertaining the fact that they are being killed in the first place for for the meat eaters on the world. But no that's not what your after it's only how they are being killed .. yeah so much for an animal rights activist you are.
You don't need to be a vegetarian in order to be for certain animal rights. The fact that people eat meat doesn't give them the right to bring needless suffering upon animals. One could be considered a biological necessity, the other is an unnecessary sadistic deed. Even in slaughterhouses we have strict rules in regards as to how animals should be kept in order to avoid unnecessary animal suffering. By your standards we should get rid of all these rules simply because the animals will be slaughtered anyway. Makes no sense.
 

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
779
329
205
animals should not be killed all meat should be the product of lab grown tissue synthesis.

If we're going to toy with animal lives or eat them for pleasure we should be sure to know what this entails in terms of moral standing. Animals are more probably not that different qualitatively in terms of consciousness from humans, only mentally handicapped and differently shaped. Whilst we could argue for torture rape and death in terms of artistic or culinary value, I do not think most would agree if they knew that it seems they are arguing for what is in the fundamental essence essentially human.
 
Mar 12, 2014
3,178
1,733
355
You don't need to be a vegetarian in order to be for certain animal rights. The fact that people eat meat doesn't give them the right to bring needless suffering upon animals. One could be considered a biological necessity, the other is an unnecessary sadistic deed. Even in slaughterhouses we have strict rules in regards as to how animals should be kept in order to avoid unnecessary animal suffering. By your standards we should get rid of all these rules simply because the animals will be slaughtered anyway. Makes no sense.
I dropped some snark early in this thread, but I do agree that as a general rule we should strive to avoid needless cruelty to animals. That said though - we are talking about outlawing historical religious practices of both Muslims and Jews that in no way harms human beings. Although I belong to neither religion, that is not acceptable to me. I will be first in line to criticize a religious practice that harms humans, but if the battle is between some sort of animal bill of rights vs. the Jewish or Muslim faith, I stand with religious freedom.
 
Likes: bigedole

strange headache

Fluctuat nec mergitur
Jan 14, 2018
1,123
4,271
465
I will be first in line to criticize a religious practice that harms humans, but if the battle is between some sort of animal bill of rights vs. the Jewish or Muslim faith, I stand with religious freedom.
I have no problem with that, you're entitled to your own opinion and value hierarchy. That being said, you must also accept that other people might not share these views, because for them animals rights are more important than religious tradition. I would say your religious freedom ends where the freedom of others begins, and that also includes, to a certain degree, animals and other living beings. Religious practices have no basis in empirical evidence because they refer to a metaphysical being that may or may not exist, animals on the other hand are tangible. Hence why religious tradition doesn't take precedence in this particular situation.

Be that as it may, there simply is no definitive answer to this as such ethical conflicts do not allow for an ultimate argument that trumps all. I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with me in that regard, what I do take issue with is people making baseless assumptions and throwing around ad hominem attacks by accusing others of Islamophobia in order to dismiss their arguments.
 
Last edited:
Mar 12, 2014
3,178
1,733
355
I have no problem with that, you're entitled to your own opinion and value hierarchy. That being said, you must also accept that other people might not share these views, because for them animals rights are more important than religious tradition. I would say your religious freedom ends where the freedom of others begins, and that also includes, to a certain degree, animals and other living beings. Religious practices have no basis in empirical evidence because they refer to a metaphysical being that may or may not exist, animals on the other hand are tangible. Hence why religious tradition doesn't take precedence in this particular situation.

Be that as it may, there simply is no definitive answer to this as such ethical conflicts do not allow for an ultimate argument that trumps all. I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with my in that regard, what I do take issue with is people making baseless assumptions and throwing around ad hominem attacks by accusing others of Islamophobia in order to dismiss their arguments.
I accept people will disagree with me as do you. Otherwise, we agree to disagree on the hierarchy you mentioned.
 

ayumarcan

Neo Member
Dec 19, 2018
33
10
85
This "killing them as humanely as possible" thing is disgusting. We live in 21st century and no matter what, if a person wants to eat meat, there's no need to torture the creature. I am not vegan or even vegetarian, but this "tradition" is simply barbaric. And I don't care about what religion these people are, we live in civilized society and this shit should be over. There are more or less humane methods to kill animals for food, and these people who are "keeping traditions" should either respect the country they live in or leave the country and go back to where they're from.
 
Apr 3, 2018
1,312
607
250
This "killing them as humanely as possible" thing is disgusting. We live in 21st century and no matter what, if a person wants to eat meat, there's no need to torture the creature. I am not vegan or even vegetarian, but this "tradition" is simply barbaric. And I don't care about what religion these people are, we live in civilized society and this shit should be over. There are more or less humane methods to kill animals for food, and these people who are "keeping traditions" should either respect the country they live in or leave the country and go back to where they're from.
So where should the European Jews go? European Muslims?
 

ayumarcan

Neo Member
Dec 19, 2018
33
10
85
So where should the European Jews go? European Muslims?
My point was mostly that they gotta change these "traditions" and be flexible. As for "Where they should go" question you can google where muslim migrants have recently come from into the EU. These are all recent updates and these things started to pop up quite recently.
 
Apr 3, 2018
1,312
607
250
My point was mostly that they gotta change these "traditions" and be flexible. As for "Where they should go" question you can google where muslim migrants have recently come from into the EU. These are all recent updates and these things started to pop up quite recently.
Im not asking about muslim migrants. Im asking about european Jews/Muslims who eat kosher/halal. Where do you suggest they go?
 
Oct 24, 2018
18
21
80
Nah his defiantly suffering islamaphobia. This is a thread about food ..

FOOD!
Islamophobia is a meaningless word. If a structured argument of any kind is presented, by definition is not a phobia.

Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, promoted by cowards and believed by morons.

The irony is that there is no group more xenophobic and exclusive/distant in their social circles and neighborhoods than muslims.

If laws are to be uphold then there should be no privileged group excluded from them, otherwise the law simply becomes a tood for the benefit of a select few.

it is through this slow creep that islamic values are inserted in our society. Give them enough time and they will forever change the country they get a foothold in, for the worse.

The principles and values of Islam have no place in western civilization, they are self destructive, let them be practiced in their countries. I DEMAND respect for the customs of the host country and an absolute prioritization over any other values, should they be MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE in relation with the host country's values. In islam's case this is abundant and the rule when compared with western values.

(edited)
 
Last edited:
Jul 16, 2017
761
564
335
Islamophobia is a meaningless word. If a structured argument of any kind is presented, by definition is not a phobia.

Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, promoted by cowards and believed by morons.
Yes , just skip out on every post Dunki has made , he has a clear hatred for Muslims , post history speaks volumes . There's a word for every type of prejudice the term for prejudice against Muslims is Islamaphobia .

Only an idiot would think we live in a world void of prejudice.


The irony is that there is no group more xenophobic and exclusive/distant in their social circles and neighborhoods than muslims.
The irony is you are excusing bigotry with bigotry


If laws are to be uphold then there should be no privileged group excluded from them, otherwise the law simply becomes a tood for the benefit of a select few.

it is through this slow creep that islamic values are inserted in our society. Give them enough time and they will forever change the country they get a foothold in, for the worse.
I don't know what uptopian world you live in but no country operates like that . You can find a privileged group in every aspect of life regardless of where you live. It's almost criminal how much businesses and religions get away with but that's the cost you pay to live in a modern society.


The principles and values of Islam have no place in western civilization, they are self destructive, let them be practiced in their countries. I DEMAND respect for the customs of the host country and an absolute prioritization over any other values, should they be MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE in relation with the host country's values. In islam's case this is abundant and the rule when compared with western values.
Yet Muslims have been living in the west for how long .. hmm

Like it or not Muslims are here to stay in the west of YOU don't like it feel free to take a plane to the North Poll or somewhere and live out this uptopian dream.
 
Last edited:
Oct 24, 2018
18
21
80
Yes , just skip out on every post Dunki has made , he has a clear hatred for Muslims , post history speaks volumes . There's a word for every type of prejudice the term for prejudice against Muslims is Islamaphobia .
Except he didn't. Only in your mind as a weak excuse.


Only an idiot would think we live in a world void of prejudice.
Another meaningless word.




The irony is you are excusing bigotry with bigotry
You don't know the meaning of that word. You use it cheaply without any rigor, only out of argumentative convenience. How easy it is to just follow a limited set of emotional and hollow rethorical arguments like a dogmatic follower of a religion, while the other side takes the hard path and actually has carefully constructed arguments.




I don't know what uptopian world you live in but no country operates like that . You can find a privileged group in every aspect of life regardless of where you live. It's almost criminal how much businesses and religions get away with but that's the cost you pay to live in a modern society.
This statements makes no sense and has no connection with what I wrote, it's as if you simply skipped my explanation with a pre set answer. If so then I'm not surprised.

Another thing, any minimally function state institution that has been deemed morally legitimate from a constitutionalist view, you know, that political aspect upon which the MODERN STATE IS FOUNDED UPON and which is used as the main argument for distinguishing old tyrannical regimes from our current state institutions, has as it's primary point of legitimacy the concept of representation through taxation and that any policies done by the state are only legitimate if only aiming for the benefit of the CONSTITUENCY that LEGITIMIZED that state institution.

Our current state institutions have long stopped respecting these fundamental aspects and this is reflected in national policy that does not have the constituency's interests in mind.


Yet Muslims have been living in the west for how long .. hmm
Indeed they have, and in all periods and regions they were present, societal destabilization was a common consequence for european kingdoms.

Like it or not Muslims are here to stay in the west of YOU don't like it feel free to take a plane to the North Poll or somewhere and live out this uptopian dream.
Convenient, I am then stripped of all autonomy as well as agency and must accept myself and others in my community who share my views to simply bend over and SUBMIT to the will of foreign groups.

If so, then what stops me and others who share my views from openly starting a movement of territorial secession in many European countries and secede from the regions with a strong muslim presence? I would like to see the several muslim communities surviving without the taxpayer support from the respective countries they are in, the native have no obligation to tolerate them should the muslim community become violent as a result.

Let one thing be very clear here, I don't give a rats a** about your vacuous terminology of "oppression", "prejudice", "bigotry", "hate speech", etc and so forth. My rationale is guided by very different principles, the very principles that define our greco-roman/judeo-christian civilization and it's offspring values that were generated during the "enlightenment", which in turn serve as the basis of legitimacy of the modern state.

I'll even do you a favor and inform you that these principles are going to be much more in the forefront of many more people's minds through the entire western world in the coming years/decades, as the constituency (the taxpayer), are going to be ever more clearly subjected to regimes were they are not represented and must submit to taxation WITHOUT representation, are going to finally be able to identify what principles define a free country. So prepare to hear a lot more of this from many more people.

But why am I explaining this to you if it has become clear that you simply don't care about it. Believe whatever you want then.

Btw, your entire previous reply has been one giant Ad Hominem argument.

(edited)
 
Last edited:

strange headache

Fluctuat nec mergitur
Jan 14, 2018
1,123
4,271
465
The irony is you are excusing bigotry with bigotry
And you are enabling religious bigotry and archaic practices that run contrary to enlightenment values for hollow virtue signaling points because you're unable to differentiate between necessary religious criticism and religiophobia. Parroting buzzwords and putting pejorative labels on people is a poor substitute for argumentation.
 
Jan 5, 2012
14,954
658
590
Good job Belgium but it needs to made EU wide ban because it can be circumvented by importing such meat from other EU states.

We had similar plans to outlaw it in Poland but unfortunately our goverment withdraw at last moment due to meat producers pointing out it would just move production to Czech Republic without achieving anything.