Should we ban the Kosher/Halal method of killing unstunned animals?

[superstring01]

That's nice... but you'll still be fat and have heart disease.

You're assuming that's all I eat.

In fact, I'm lean and trim from plenty of exercise and a diet full of fresh veggies and complex carbs.

But I never miss an opportunity for a great burger (and I'm not talking the kind you get at a restaurant). I make a killer burger. Five Guys does as well.

~String

 

[IamJoseph]

Apocryphal. Good stuff though.

In 1836 the murderer Lacenaire agreed to wink after execution. He didn't. Attempts to elicit a reaction from the head of the murderer Prunier in 1879 were also fruitless. The following year a doctor pumped blood from a living dog into the head of the murderer and rapist Menesclou three hours after execution. The lips trembled, the eyelids twitched, and the head seemed about to speak, although no words emerged. In 1905 another doctor claimed that when he called the name of the murderer Languille just after decapitation, the head opened its eyes and focused on him.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns...d-remain-briefly-conscious-after-decapitation

As a serial decapitatress, perhaps Sam can tell us.
Do the eyes of the mice look surprised when you top them?

IMHO, there is nothing surprising of such stuff. All it shows is that there is an underlying process in life, even that it can be emulated one day using the same engineering. This only affirms the system was purposeful, rather than any intended inference is just happened by jitterbugging quarks.

Darwin was also a fruitcake: he observed some of these engineerings embedded in nature and shouted Eureka! The car manual proves there is no car maker. I see the reverse applying - and from a totally scientific lens to boot?

 

[IamJoseph]

You're assuming that's all I eat.

In fact, I'm lean and trim from plenty of exercise and a diet full of fresh veggies and complex carbs.

But I never miss an opportunity for a great burger (and I'm not talking the kind you get at a restaurant). I make a killer burger. Five Guys does as well.

~String

Everything good is bad for you and everything bad is what helps most in the end. If I were a virus I would never attack a smoker's lungs - I'd go for the cleanest pink ones. I smoke to protect myself only.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

.......any intended inference is just happened by jitterbugging quarks.
Darwin was also a fruitcake:.......

I'll have some of what you're smoking

 

[786]

What would slitting the animals' throat have to do with spinal cord afferents bringing back pain sensation back to the brain? They don't cut through the spinal cord.

So if I took out a person's brain and left the spinal cord intact you think the 'person' will feel pain?

The point is the video can't get this information across. Only reading a scientific study can.

Last I knew stunning doesn't cut through anything. The video of the stunning is actually makes it seem that you just 'paralyzed' the animal into being totally motionless but cutting it up- and that the animal is probably suffering... It doesn't show you why the 'pain' stops by becoming stiff...

Or are you suggesting that the videos showing the stunning is also somehow proving that there is no pain? I mean thats like saying that a live person is absolutely tied up (stiff) and isn't moving at all and then he's cut up and he doesn't feel pain because he's not moving.... Movement of animal doesn't prove jack squat about pain.

Peace be unto you

 

[Neverfly]

So if I took out a person's brain and left the spinal cord intact you think the 'person' will feel pain?

The point is the video can't get this information across. Only reading a scientific study can.

Last I knew stunning doesn't cut through anything. The video of the stunning is actually makes it seem that you just 'paralyzed' the animal into being totally motionless but cutting it up- and that the animal is probably suffering... It doesn't show you why the 'pain' stops by becoming stiff...

Or are you suggesting that the videos showing the stunning is also somehow proving that there is no pain? I mean thats like saying that a live person is absolutely tied up (stiff) and isn't moving at all and then he's cut up and he doesn't feel pain because he's not moving.... Movement of animal doesn't prove jack squat about pain.

Peace be unto you

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humane_Slaughter_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_slaughter

 

[S.A.M.]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humane_Slaughter_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_slaughter

I hate it when people answer arguments with links

We could do this ad nauseum:

http://justfuckinggoogleit.com/

Or you could argue if paralysis by electric shock precludes pain. One of the most significant symptoms of "shock" where blood pressure drops rapidly due to blood loss is the inability to feel anything but cold. Does electric shock work the same way? Do we know this? I've only felt mild electric shock, but it was pretty painful.

 

[Neverfly]

I hate it when people answer arguments with links

Too bad.


I like to support my claims. You don't have to read it. You can wander off and read plenty of posts where folks don't support what they say.

Or you could argue if paralysis by electric shock precludes pain. One of the most significant symptoms of "shock" where blood pressure drops rapidly due to blood loss is the inability to feel anything but cold. Does electric shock work the same way? Do we know this? I've only felt mild electric shock, but it was pretty painful.

Here ya go:
http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_1/chpt_3/2.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurotransmitter_systems
Warning: PDF
http://www.iec.ch/news_centre/onlinepubs/pdf/basicsafety.pdf

 

[S.A.M.]

Linking to an encyclopedia is not "supporting" an argument. I fail to see any evidence that electric shock is less painful than a slit throat. You could present the argument you wish to make and cite the encyclopedia as a source instead.

Here ya go:
http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_1/chpt_3/2.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurotransmitter_systems

I exsanguinated animals, do you think neurotransmitter systems are a mystery to me? What is the difference in the stress response to electric shock and blood loss? I would never subject an animal to an electric shock, but I would cheerfully decapitate them as the most humane way of killing. This also passes muster with ethics committees. I agree there is a difference between decapitation and bleeding out, but I have yet to see any evidence that tissue destruction by electric stunning reduces rather than increases the suffering.

 

[Neverfly]

I exsanguinated animals, do you think neurotransmitter systems are a mystery to me? What is the difference in the stress response to electric shock and blood loss?

Who knows.
Make your argument and cite your sources then

Or... click on the pdf and read it instead of complaining when I don't wrap it up into a neat little sound bite for you.

Besides, I was arguing in favor of a different method than electric shock. So go ask someone that favors electric shock.

 

[S.A.M.]

Hmm so your response is to read the link. I'll do you the same courtesy you did me.

http://justfuckinggoogleit.com/

I think that effectively concludes our discussion

 

[Neverfly]

I think that effectively concludes our discussion

Agreed.

 

[786]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humane_Slaughter_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_slaughter

Hmm... I don't think I was questioning that these ritualistic form are more painful... :bugeye:

Peace be unto you

 

[IamJoseph]

I'll have some of what you're smoking

The virus' won't like you then - they'l run miles away. Basic immunity 101 factor. :shrug:

 

[S.A.M.]

Hmm... I don't think I was questioning that these ritualistic form are more painful... :bugeye:

Peace be unto you

On the other hand, you never have to slit a throat twice. Electrocution is not fool proof and may have to be applied more than once.

Note: In some plants it is the policy to carry out a second “safety” stun with gun or captive bolt, or a second electrical stun to maintain insensibility. This is acceptable if the animal is rendered insensible on the first stun.

http://www.animalwelfareapproved.org/standards/slaughter-redmeat/

Plus there is evidence that there is extreme pain immediately when the bolt gun is applied and some animals, example horses, have been known to regain consciousness within 30 seconds after the bolt gun is applied There is also the added complication that electrocution may produce toxins in the blood.

So what is the evidence that it is less painful to stun than to slit throats? Who has done comparison studies?

 

[Michael]

With the stun gun the animal is knocked unconscious and thus has no conscious perception of pain. Of course the receptors and neurotransmitters would still function. Just like when you go in and are "put under", and have surgery. Pain is a precept just like sight, hearing, balance, touch, etc...

The time it takes to become unconscious from a cut throat isn't as short as it is for a stun (which is almost instantaneous). Further, a stunned animal can be carted away for bleed out, if required, and thus animals are not standing in blood knee deep (which probably scares the shit out of them - hence the need for an electric prod). It's simply a more humane method of killing an animal. Of course God created a world of death for survival and so It obviously doesn't care. Humans OTOH do.

 

[GeoffP]

I would never subject an animal to an electric shock, but I would cheerfully decapitate them as the most humane way of killing. This also passes muster with ethics committees.

As a member - albeit a statistical geneticist - of an actual ethics committee, decapitation is not a preferred manner of killing and "passes muster" only at need. Stunning prior to decapitation is preferred. To refer back to the point of the thread - and questions of proof - exsanguination alone is not an ethical manner of killing. There is no demonstrated need for exsanguination in kosher or halal slaughter. The demand for it is based on supposition. I refer you to a page from McGill University.

Unacceptable Methods of Euthanasia for All Species:

...

Exsanguination without anaesthesia

http://animalcare.mcgill.ca/res-euth.htm

I recommend that you check with IACUC or the Canadian or British equivalent.

 

[GeoffP]

On the other hand, you never have to slit a throat twice.

Of course not.

But it is also guaranteed that each subject will receive the full allotment of pain the first time, rather than a few animals requiring "re-shock".

Really, this argument is absurd.

 

[IamJoseph]

With the stun gun the animal is knocked unconscious and thus has no conscious perception of pain. Of course the receptors and neurotransmitters would still function. Just like when you go in and are "put under", and have surgery. Pain is a precept just like sight, hearing, balance, touch, etc...

The time it takes to become unconscious from a cut throat isn't as short as it is for a stun (which is almost instantaneous). Further, a stunned animal can be carted away for bleed out, if required, and thus animals are not standing in blood knee deep (which probably scares the shit out of them - hence the need for an electric prod). It's simply a more humane method of killing an animal. Of course God created a world of death for survival and so It obviously doesn't care. Humans OTOH do.

Better, humane slaughter was introduced with the Kosher mode more than 3000 years ago.

 

[GeoffP]

It is not humane. It is painful and stressful.