Why is halal legal?

[Violet]

Sae...I'm not the one calling it brutal, or making the argument that it is, I've stated that, oh I don't know, umpteen bazillion times. Laws regarding the ethical treatment of livestock defines it as such. I don't think I've once voiced support for said laws. That I'm using the language of the two people at odds in this debate is just a matter of conversational conformity..lol. They have both decided to use the term brutal, and I don't feel like arguing for or against it....even if you do...so stop dragging me into your deep dark place, please.

With you on the stabbings though, now that I think about it, the whole sawing bit would take way too much effort on my part. Could probably let them die of old age as well.

'Ethical treatment' supposes there is such a thing... and yet it doesn't tell us what is ethical. Nonetheless, I apologize for being irritated with you for using the word 'brutal' for this petty violence. Instead I'll be irritated with the others for it ^_^

But if you let them live: they consume resources and have babies that consume even more that then have babies and... it has to stop. I don't like crowds.

[The Grand Nudger]

They may have babies, but I'm not one of those "sins of the fathers" types.

[Napoléon]

And what is necessary? One cannot require a thing without first a goal.

Why should we lessen pain? I happen to greatly appreciate it.

Why do you want to lessen something that is not bad? Painlessness is horrible.

You can be a right sick fucker you know that?

[Violet]

You can be a right sick fucker you know that?

Oh I hate it when I'm sick. Completely kills the mood. I really don't think I could have sex when sick (and enjoy it).

So I'm not much of a right sick fucker... nor a left sick fucker for that matter

They may have babies, but I'm not one of those "sins of the fathers" types.

Nonetheless... they have their parent's genes and we probably don't want them

[Faith No More]

And what is necessary? One cannot require a thing without first a goal.

What is necessary is what is vital to the goal, in this case the death of the animal. Death does not have to be painful and can be swift. Prolonging death causes more suffering which is unnecessary to the goal.

Why should we lessen pain? I happen to greatly appreciate it.

Why do you want to lessen something that is not bad? Painlessness is horrible.

Okay, in that case I'll take a mental note to remember that if I ever see you on fire, to just let you burn because you're enjoying yourself.

My own understanding of this is that none of the animals referenced here have any control over what is being done. The battling animals do so because it is what they do... they know not else. The butcher does so because it is what they do... they know not else. Regardless of the 'brutal depravity' of their actions (as if this was brutal... try a Mauler Device if you want brutality)... I am not blind to what causes their actions. And so I am unconcerned with the end result of what was done. It was done, it's in the past, it's no longer an issue. It is the reason(s) for doing a thing that interest me.

Not true. The fighters in UFC have complete control over whether or not they want to endure the violence. At any time beforehand they can withdraw from the match, or if the pain becomes too much during they can concede. They do it, not just because it is what they do, but it is what they want to do, which is why comparing sport fighting to halal fails.

If we cease to be concerned with acts simply because they are in the past, we are allowing them to happen in the future, which is the real issue.

[Violet]

What is necessary is what is vital to the goal, in this case the death of the animal. Death does not have to be painful and can be swift. Prolonging death causes more suffering which is unnecessary to the goal.

If the goal is only death, then the goal does not involve the speed at which this arrives. It is not required that the death be painless and it can be slow. Prolonging death and bleeding the creature out improves the quality of the meat. Especially if it is frozen in ice-saltwater immediately after it is slain to not only delay the onset of rigor mortis: but also to soften it.

Okay, in that case I'll take a mental note to remember that if I ever see you on fire, to just let you burn because you're enjoying yourself.

I would be. I'd be laughing so hard at catching myself on fire as I put it out

It would be a mistake to mistake appreciation for enjoyment. And I like how pain informs me of what not to strain further... much safer than continuing to damage a body part until it needs to be removed entirely.

Not true. The fighters in UFC have complete control over whether or not they want to endure the violence. At any time beforehand they can withdraw from the match, or if the pain becomes too much during they can concede. They do it, not just because it is what they do, but it is what they want to do, which is why comparing sport fighting to halal fails.

Control is an illusion. They have no more control than you or I. There are no choices: everything is already determined. The journey's end is set from it's beginning.

If we cease to be concerned with acts simply because they are in the past, we are allowing them to happen in the future, which is the real issue.

If we are concerned with the future: we will react in the present. Should you have a problem with Halal meat... fine then: you have it now and you will work with it now. If you have a problem with the Halal of the past... well tough: there's nothing to fix, for that trail has ended..

[Faith No More]

If the goal is only death, then the goal does not involve the speed at which this arrives. It is not required that the death be painless and it can be slow. Prolonging death and bleeding the creature out improves the quality of the meat. Especially if it is frozen in ice-saltwater immediately after it is slain to not only delay the onset of rigor mortis: but also to soften it.

Well, what I meant was that the immediate goal is the death of the animal, but one of the overall goals of life should be to decrease suffering. What you say about the quality of the meat is interesting as I hadn't heard that before. At this point it becomes a question of is that extra quality worth the suffering of the animal. You don't have to answer that as I'm pretty sure I know what you think.

It would be a mistake to mistake appreciation for enjoyment. And I like how pain informs me of what not to strain further... much safer than continuing to damage a body part until it needs to be removed entirely.

Now this I can understand. I appreciate pain because it puts the painless times into context. Your explanation, however, says nothing about the pain of others which is what the discussion is about. Not all beings are as masochistic as you come across.

Control is an illusion. They have no more control than you or I. There are no choices: everything is already determined. The journey's end is set from it's beginning.

So, since you believe in determinism, do you see it as a cosmic force guiding things or do you believe that our brain structure predetermines our behavior?

If we are concerned with the future: we will react in the present. Should you have a problem with Halal meat... fine then: you have it now and you will work with it now. If you have a problem with the Halal of the past... well tough: there's nothing to fix, for that trail has ended..

We do react in the present and can't change the past, but if we sit idly by, we are determined to repeat the mistakes of the past.

[Violet]

Well, what I meant was that the immediate goal is the death of the animal, but one of the overall goals of life should be to decrease suffering. What you say about the quality of the meat is interesting as I hadn't heard that before. At this point it becomes a question of is that extra quality worth the suffering of the animal. You don't have to answer that as I'm pretty sure I know what you think.

Why should decreasing suffering be a goal of life in general? I think decreasing the suffering of being I care about is a worthy goal. Random goats and people in China and fish? Really don't care if they suffer or don't.

It applies to salmon... which I have been slaughtering for the last 36 hours. We pick them out of net, gill them, put them in a ice-saltwater brined tote, pull line to the next one, repeat until box is full or tide goal is over.

The extra quality is very much worth the extra suffering. We would lose money for our quality if they didn't pay us extra for our fish at the end of the season (we bleed out fish... there is a lot of weight in blood lost over the season). One day, a poor mother will buy alaskan salmon, and it will be one of our fish, and their family will love it... and then they'll buy our salmon again It's an indirect way of increasing the demand with an eye for the future of the market

If I told you what the other people's fish goes through... you wouldn't even want to see it... let alone eat it.

Now this I can understand. I appreciate pain because it puts the painless times into context. Your explanation, however, says nothing about the pain of others which is what the discussion is about. Not all beings are as masochistic as you come across.

The pain of others does not concern me if it does not affect me

So, since you believe in determinism, do you see it as a cosmic force guiding things or do you believe that our brain structure predetermines our behavior?

Brain structure. I'm anything but superstitious.

We do react in the present and can't change the past, but if we sit idly by, we are determined to repeat the mistakes of the past.

We aren't determined to do so... that said: we might well do so.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

LOL, padraic, was just an amusing turn of phrase. I've been in food production for awhile, and I'm an avid hunter. I've dropped the hammer on more than a few animals in my time and I'd be lying if I told you that they died with dignity. When pressed about this, I can admit abject cruelty for no reasons other than to satisfy a predatory instinct and the love of barbecued meat. I only have myself to point at here. Halal, on the other hand, is preparing livestock in a manner that is assumed to appease the lord god.

Oh, OK. Hard to see tongue-in-cheek in the written word.

However, I find cruelty to an animal for atavistic pleasure more morally objectionable than to do so because of sincere moral/religious conviction.--Of course I find both reasons disgusting,so the distinction is moot to me.

Would I kill an animal? Of course, if was hungry enough.I've killed and dressed chickens and turkeys.Did not enjoy the experience at all. I saw a water buffalo killed once (for a wedding feast) in Malaysia. Nearly threw up. The meat was chewy but flavoursome.

[Napoléon]

I have no personal problem with killing animals for food, we have to eat right? I just object to the way it can be done.

That's just my subjective opinion.

What isn't negotiable in this is what the law has to say on the issue. Whether you agree with laws or not they are there for a purpose. Now why do we have animal rights legislation, but then actively dismiss it in the name of a religion? Why can slitting an animals' throat be ok if it is done in the name of Islam, but not in the name of the invisible pink unicorn? Rules for some and not for others.