So Why Should They Have Excemptions For Their Beliefs?

[youngmafbog]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3866340/Animals-dying-agony-halal-meat-Muslim-ignorance-pre-slaughter-stunning-causing-needless-pain-say-experts.html

[fiction-factory]

I think the exemptions apply to any religious beliefs. Not saying I agree but maybe it's not just a Muslim issue. Kosher meat can be an issue too

[Bazile]

Perhaps you lot can't recognise talent

[youngmafbog]

I agree on kosher etc ff, question still applies.

[andy-hughes]

My view is, if you eat meat, then you are a hypocrite if you protest in any way about any of the degrees of 'humanity' used to kill animals for food.

The fact that some butchers 'stun' meat and expect to take the moral high ground with those who do not is frankly laughable.

They all partake in the slaughter of animals, and quibbling about perceived niceties in the process are utterly meaningless.

And if anyone eats meat, they have lost the moral right to argue in any way about the humane treatment of animals.

[Bazile]

eh - what's that doing there ?

[Prudie]

Andy I find that utter balderdash. We were designed to eat meat however thank heavens some parts of the world have evolved enough to have a conscience about how that meat is brought to the table. To say that I shouldn't care if for (unreal) example a cow is slowly stoned to death while being hung upside down from a lamp-post rather than an instant hit before I can eat it is actually offensive.

[naomi24]

Prudie, I agree.

[andy-hughes]

Prudie - //Andy I find that utter balderdash. We were designed to eat meat however thank heavens some parts of the world have evolved enough to have a conscience about how that meat is brought to the table. To say that I shouldn't care if for (unreal) example a cow is slowly stoned to death while being hung upside down from a lamp-post rather than an instant hit before I can eat it is actually offensive. //

My point is this - if you eat meat, an animal is going to suffer and die so you can do it.

The niceties of who much it suffers are just conscience salving - nothing more that that.

If you feel better because an animal suffered 'a bit' rather than 'a lot', then as I opined earlier, in my view you are unable to take a moral stance in the argument.

[naomi24]

andy-hughes, from the RSPCA: //Stunning - when performed correctly, causes an animal to lose consciousness, so the animal can’t feel pain.//

Your argument is erroneous.

[hereIam]

Why should they be killed in this horrific manner to appease an ethnic minority (so far) in this country ??? I totally agree with Prudie.

[hereIam]

We should follow Denmark's lead and ban it ...

[youngmafbog]

Sorry Andy but that is real rot.

Are you a veggie by any chance?

[ToraToraTora]

"My view is, if you eat meat, then you are a hypocrite if you protest in any way about any of the degrees of 'humanity' used to kill animals for food." - have a day off Andy, that sounds like a rabid veggie comment. It is perfectly reasonable to expect humane slaughter methods.

[New Judge]

"I think the exemptions apply to any religious beliefs."

Strange. No such exemptions on religious grounds seemed to be available for the Christian bakers who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple's wedding:

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/live-updates-ashers-bakery-lose-samesex-cake-appeal-35154967.html

It seems it is out of order to upset a couple of humans by refusing to bake them a cake but perfectly OK to slaughter an animal by slitting its throat whilst it is concious when far more humane methods are available.

[andy-hughes]

TTT - //"My view is, if you eat meat, then you are a hypocrite if you protest in any way about any of the degrees of 'humanity' used to kill animals for food." - have a day off Andy, that sounds like a rabid veggie comment. It is perfectly reasonable to expect humane slaughter methods. //

It may be but since I am not (last time I checked) rabid, and I am not a vegetarian, that wouldn't really apply would it?

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - //andy-hughes, from the RSPCA: //Stunning - when performed correctly, causes an animal to lose consciousness, so the animal can’t feel pain.//

Your argument is erroneous. //

That pre-supposes that all abattoirs apply RSPCA-agreed levels of slaughter practice at all times - and you and I know that there are ample examples where this is clearly not the case.

[douglas9401]

Let them eat cake.

[Togo]

Touche Douglas :))

[naomi24]

andy-hughes, it pre-supposes nothing. It simply states a fact contradicting your argument that //if you eat meat, an animal is going to suffer and die so you can do it. //

An animal is going to die, yes, but suffer - not necessarily.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - // ... not necessarily. //

Indeed.

So, you are faced with two choices - I can either accept that fact that maybe one (and one is one too many) animal may suffer in providing me with meat to eat - and accept that on that basis, I have no moral ground on which to stand,

or

I can be a vegetarian, and therefore demonstrate the conviction of my views and be fully entitled to argue against the cruelty to animals slaughtered for meat.

I can only adopt the first position - and my view is that anyone who eats meat must adopt it as well - to do otherwise is hypocrisy.