Lau2976 wrote: » I disagree. I was vegan for a number of years but lapsed because of a health issue. I personally feel guilty for eating meat but the least I can do is try my hardest to ensure the meat I'm eating came from an animal who's suffering was as minimal as possible
Lau2976 wrote: » About the type of food I prefer?
RobYourBuilder wrote: » Do you get Indian takeout? Chances are it's halal. Go to Subway in Ballsbridge? It's halal. Go to a Kebab shop? Probably halal.
Karl Stein wrote: » No. I think you're lying about your rigorous avoiding of halal/kosher meat. You eat meat. You don't have a problem with animals being killed for you to eat.
ceadaoin. wrote: » I feel guilty too. I always buy free range eggs and try to buy free range chicken and grass fed beef whenever possible. At least those animals possibly had a better quality of life. The killing of the animals seems pretty horrific either way to me and I try not to think about it.
Lau2976 wrote: » I wasn't really 100% sure where to post this so if its suited better somewhere else please move it mods I was curious as to peoples opinion of Halal meat?
CrazyRabbit wrote: » Turns out that the only difference is where the neck is cut, either the side (dies from blood loss) or the front (suffocates to death)..
CrazyRabbit wrote: » I had a discussion about this with a Muslim and he was saying how Kosher meat unethical because of how the 'sick Jews' slaughter the animal. So I asked him what was different. Turns out that the only difference is where the neck is cut, either the side (dies from blood loss) or the front (suffocates to death). I find both equally abhorrent.
mike_ie wrote: » Well that's patently untrue. "The act is performed by severing the trachea, esophagus, carotid arteries, jugular veins and vagus nerve in a swift action using an extremely sharp blade.... ...this results in a rapid drop in blood pressure in the brain and loss of consciousness rendering the animal insensible to pain and to exsanguinate in a prompt and precise action."
UCDVet wrote: » Ethically - I think it's incredibly wrong to eat halal meat. For meat to be halal, it *must* come from an animal that is killed by a Muslim. That's incredibly close minded. Imagine if I were to refuse food if a Christian had not prepared it. Or refuse to eat food that was prepared by a Muslim? What is the implication here, that non-Muslims are dirty, unclean, and not be trusted in the preparation of meat. I'm all for respecting people religion, but this goes beyond respect. It's disrespectful to all other religions. If I were to say, 'Oh - you REALLY should try this sandwich shop - all of it's employees are atheist!' How ridiculous would that be? I believe in freedom of religion, but halal meat creates an industry that requires zero freedom of religion. If you want the job - you MUST be Muslim.
Lau2976 wrote: » That is another issue when food is prepared to fit to religious specifications.
Lau2976 wrote: » It depends on what sources you take though. Kosher slaughter is often botched and the animal is left in agony for anywhere from 2-8 minutes. And when it isn't botched it still isn't conclusively proven that they feel no pain, they just are unable to show signs of distress or moo.
Lau2976 wrote: » And even if I wasn't, I mainly eat pork when I eat meat.
Dial Hard wrote: » If you're trying to be an ethical meat-eater, and I genuinely believe you when you say you are, you should be aware that most Irish pork is extremely intensively reared. There are a few free-range producers, and they're well worth checking out if you're actively trying to be an ethical omnivore. I love meat, but I feel very strongly about the way my food is treated before it gets to my plate. Not all meat is created equal.
zombieHanalei wrote: » Never really got this outrage with Halal style execution, it's gruesome, but having worked in a meat factory for a few months a long time ago I can say that so called "humane" methods of slaughter are far from what I'd call humane. There's a bit of a double standard in objecting to the method of slaughter on cruelty grounds while overlooking the cruelty of mass producing animals in order for us to consume their carcasses in the first place. I'm pretty sure the animal doesn't want to die be that in a humane or inhumane way; "I'm happy to consume the flesh of an animal and overlook it's right to life, but any mention of slitting it's throat and all of a sudden I care deeply about the animal"
mike_ie wrote: » Exactly the same can be said of captive bolt, used in every slaughterhouse here.
UCDVet wrote: » Maybe I'm misunderstanding. I thought that was what 'Halal' meant?
Gbear wrote: » I'd rather die of blood loss than suffocation. I wouldn't be a fan of Islam by any stretch but I do think the hubbub over halal is a bit silly. Ultimately, you're killing things and eating them. How you do it makes a bit of a difference but I'd argue how you make them live is more important. Regardless, cows, pigs and even animals we like to anthropomorphise like dogs don't have a whole lot going on upstairs. While it's not quite as trivial as squashing a fly, they're still not properly sentient. If it's no hassle there's no harm in treating them as humanely as possible but either you think it's ok to corral them in cages or pens, kill them and eat them, or you don't. The specific details are fairly trivial. That said, I don't agree with pandering to stupid beliefs for the sake of it either.
Lau2976 wrote: » They are not trivial and to suggest they are ahows a complete lack of empathy towards animals.
Gbear wrote: » Regardless, cows, pigs and even animals we like to anthropomorphise like dogs don't have a whole lot going on upstairs. While it's not quite as trivial as squashing a fly, they're still not properly sentient.
whatdoicare wrote: » I used to work in a chicken restaurant that served Halal chicken - the poor chicken that came into us was always very battered and bruised with broken bones and sometimes missing limbs. I always wondered if the bruising was done after death or before death but it always looked like the chickens were battered to death! Regular butchered chicken we used to get in for a different restaurant was always bruise and break free and they always had all their limbs so the bruising is not a thing that happens as standard. Oh and the chicken was always full of blood - it used to take a lot of heavy duty washing to clean it all out or else it dyed the chicken pink which remained after cooking, making cooked chicken look raw!! I would try to avoid places that serve it.
DBB wrote: » I didn't realise they had the interweb in the 16th century! At least, based on what you've said above, I'm assuming that's where you're posting from? Children can't feel pain either, right? Because this belief went hand-in-hand with the belief that "higher" animals aren't "properly sentient" back in the dark ages too. There are tomes, and tomes, and tomes of research to show that these animals and at least all vertebrates are entirely, 100% sentient, and pretty clever too. I'm shocked that anyone could truly believe otherwise, in this day and age. It's pretty much this factor alone which gives them protection under animal welfare legislation.
Biologist Susan Dudley studied a group of Pale Jewelweed (Impatiens pallida) plants. Her findings—published in the American Journal of Botany—show that these flowering plants use less energy to grow roots when they are surrounded by relatives (plants that share similar genes). However, when they are amongst plants that are unrelated, their roots will grow as fast as possible. This discovery shows that plants are capable of kin recognition; meaning they are able to tell the difference between related and unrelated plants, and adjust their social behavior accordingly.
