My pet peeve again ... Thank Goblin for Israel, but I'd like to tell you guys where you can stick your shechita.

Mark Hubbard's picture
Submitted by Mark Hubbard on Mon, 2010-11-29 05:05

There are many pre-conditions of a civilized, free society, too many to list in fact because we are so far from that ideal, but before we get there we’ll need to see, finally, the last priest hanging from the entrails of the last damned god, as that time will denote the end of the age of the savage, worshipping before the bloodied altar of some mystical other. As Voltaire said, those that believe in absurdities become capable of atrocities. So to this

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/n...

Quote:

Animal welfare organisations are disappointed by the Government's decision to reverse a ban on the kosher killing of chickens, saying the practice is inhumane.
The kosher killing - shechita - involves severing the neck of the animal, and allowing the blood to drain.
On Friday, Agriculture Minister David Carter exempted the practice from a decision in May that all commercially slaughtered chickens must be stunned before being killed.

Jewish groups in New Zealand also hope to be able to perform shechita on sheep.

There is no need for this other than to appease some mystical savage.

As to lawyer Avinoam Sharon who says just think of this as ‘Jewish ritual hunting’, well, first, frankly, given the choice of having my neck sliced through and bleeding to death, compared to a bullet through the brain-pan, I know what I’d pick: what about you Avinoam? I’m from a farm and have seen many sheep killed by having their throats cut and bleeding to death, and I never liked it, and could certainly never do it (my father hated having to do it); there is a difference between that and an animal killed by a clean shot (though personally, I can’t stomach hunting either), or an animal killed humanely by stunning it senseless first. In the case of the commercial abattoir there is no civilised argument that can be made, ever, for not stunning first. As a consumer of meat, I demand it.

I’m sick of this sick rubbish. Islamo-savages, Jewish-savages, Christian-savages: I wish you’d all just bugger off back to your caves. (Well perhaps a bit harsh, just off the cuff I don’t think the Christians still advocate any type of killing without anesthetic, though we all know if the Big G said to go twist the heads off little bunny rabbits then they’d have to do so, thus I’ll leave them in the camp of the savages in the meantime).

(Note under that other savagery that goes on concerning Halal, at least those animals are still stunned first. Just a pity when it comes to killing humans the Islamo-savages aren’t so compromising).


( categories: )

"Thanks Leonid, but I'll

Leonid's picture

"Thanks Leonid, but I'll stubbornly live with my contradiction on this one: I'm happy with it (most importantly I understand it)."

Read the book anyway. You'll enjoy it

"And incidentally, Leonid, you are wrong about the difference between an animal stunned and killed, and having it's throat slit."

But I said, I don't know the difference, and you don't know it either. This is the animal personal experience which cannot be translated or expressed in any way. However, from my personal experience, electrocution (stunning) is very bad. Whatever the case may be, this is the issue for moral discussion, not political struggle

Thanks Leonid, but I'll

Mark Hubbard's picture

Thanks Leonid, but I'll stubbornly live with my contradiction on this one: I'm happy with it (most importantly I understand it).

And for NZ readers, I'll resist blogging on what I think the punishment should be for the Kaikoura seal killers - http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/n... - although it would involve dropping them over Ohau Point onto the rocks below. (And I still hold, if they'll do what they did to animals, and on that scale, then these animals will be reeking as much harm to humans as well, in one way or another).

And incidentally, Leonid, you are wrong about the difference between an animal stunned and killed, and having it's throat slit.

End of thread.

"I"m very aware of the

Leonid's picture

"I"m very aware of the contradiction Leonid: that's why I said on my first comment this is neither an Objectivist nor a libertarian thread."

Even non-Objectivist cannot live in contradiction. If you want to resolve it, I'd recommend excellent book which is dealing with this particular issue and many others. The name is "Noble Vision" by Gen LaGreca.

http://www.amazon.com/Noble-Vi...

I"m very aware of the

Mark Hubbard's picture

I"m very aware of the contradiction Leonid: that's why I said on my first comment this is neither an Objectivist nor a libertarian thread.

"If we're going to let

Leonid's picture

"If we're going to let religious barbarity overrule secular law in this case, again, then hell, why not start our courts referrring to Sharia Law also, per Linz's (stunning/sickening) link on that other thread:"

But this is exactly my point: It doesn't matter whether religious or animal "rights" activists overtake secular law, in both cases it would mean infringement of people's rights, including the right to kill their animals in any way they please, unless extreme unusual cruelty is involved. State has no business to regulate abattoirs. Secular law exists only to protect people, not animals.

"(By the way, having clearly given the point, if it came down to testing animals to find a cure for a specific thing in me individually - no one else - then I would be immensely conflicted over that, and may well choose the quality of lives of such animals over my own."

Meaning you have less value than animals? If you face contradiction, check your premises.

It breaks my heart to say so,

Mark Hubbard's picture

It breaks my heart to say so, Commander, but if animal testing can lead to cures for humans, then animal testing is morally okay. (Though I hate animal testing - some things in life are repugnant to me, but the morality of man qua man is clear nevertheless).

And this was never a question raised by my header post or subsequent comments: plus is not relevant whatsoever to this case and its two pronged argument:

1) If behoves humans to treat animals humanely.

2) If we keep giving way to the barbarity of religious law like this, then as a society we are losing all gains made through the separation of church and state: a Libertarian state is founded on secular law (obviously). Indeed, a civilised society must be based on secular law, otherwise it always risks atrocity.

(By the way, having clearly given the point, if it came down to testing animals to find a cure for a specific thing in me individually - no one else - then I would be immensely conflicted over that, and may well choose the quality of lives of such animals over my own. I am only talking about the instance which it is solely my personal choice.)

An animals pain

Richard Wiig's picture

If causing pain to an animal was essential in finding a cure for your terminally ill child, would you choose to cause the pain, or your childs death?

Two issues here Leonid:All

Mark Hubbard's picture

Two issues here Leonid:

All your examples belong to the extreme cases of animal cruelty, where the pain and suffering of the animals are obvious and beyond any doubt.

Or the difference between stunning an animal before killing it, or slitting it's throat: yes.

I've said, even if by a matter of degree, the stunning is demonstrably more humane. Case closed. (But hey, at least we've established an animal feels pain, so that's an improvement).

BTW, who is cutting the limbs off live animals?

You're a very literal minded man Leonid, but not this much so, or this stupid. No need for me to answer to this.

And now to that other issue - and I've run both lines from my header post. This is further the example of NZ secular law being trounced by religious law (both Kosher and Halal killing are a huge step backward to the Dark Ages, not toward the future and the supposed separation of state and religion).

If we're going to let religious barbarity overrule secular law in this case, again, then hell, why not start our courts referrring to Sharia Law also, per Linz's (stunning/sickening) link on that other thread:

http://www.christianpost.com/a...

Do you want to argue that one?

Edit:

I've just realised a signficant point here. I wonder if the Jewish community pushing for this, for religious law again taking precedence to secular law ... I wonder if they truly realise the quid pro quo in all this: Judaic law here, Sharia law there, once you've given the principle, all is lost.

Mark

Leonid's picture

All your examples belong to the extreme cases of animal cruelty, where the pain and suffering of the animals are obvious and beyond any doubt. There are not relevant to the matter in question. There is no argument about cruelty against animals which has no justification whatsoever in any circumstances. But how one may decide that electrocution is better than shechita or shechita is better than shot is behind me. From my experience, electrocution is bad enough. Any animal who is facing dead would be scared and stressed. The only certain way to eliminate the pain and stress is to put the animal under general anesthesia.

Obviously, religious person would justify everything by divine law and to defy him one has to defy his premises, not his customs and rules which are consequences of his arbitrary believes. BTW, who is cutting the limbs off live animals? I never heard about such a practice, religious or otherwise.

As to the matter in question,

Mark Hubbard's picture

As to the matter in question, there is no way to know which type of killing is preferable from the animal's point of view, so the whole discussion is simply meaningless animal welfarists' exercise ... There are no criteria from the objective point of view.

I don't accept that at all. When I use all my senses combined with my reason to experience an animal having it's throat slit, be shot, or be stunned, then that is objective evidence: I know what a scared sheep looks like, a stressed sheep, and one that is in pain. If we put ten people into an abattoir to assess which method of killing caused the most distress to the sheep, I'm confident that all ten people would come to the same conclusion based on the evidence.

Now let's look at what you are saying, and what results from it. Because you do not think a sheeps pain can be objectively identified, then why, in your brutal machine world, can you not simply cut the legs off live lambs to eat: hell, it'll keep the rest of the meat fresher. What is to stop you advocating that Leonid? A simple clarification please: do you think it acceptable to cut the limbs off a live lamb? (If not, why not).

And do you have a problem with young thugs strapping fireworks to birds?

Dog fighting?

If not, why not?

the modern 21th century trend to put an animal before man.

Yeah, but don't lump me into that. If I was in 'that' camp, I would be arguing for not killing animals plus I'd be a vegetarian. I'm not. I'm simply saying that how a man treats an animal speaks about the character of the man, and after having made the decision to kill the animal for human consumption, then it behoves a man living by reason to kill that animal as humanely as possible, and that is further objectively identifiable.

Otherwise you truly have just given a defence of dog fighting and any sort of cruelty to an animal: I'll be fascinated to learn your answer to my above questions.

It proves that some religious rules had been created by the people for sake of the people, not an animal or goblin...

I don't care why these rules were created - and I don't necessarily accept that, but I don't know enough (anything) about Judaism - the material fact now is the head throat slitter justified kosher killing to Larry Williams yesterday on the grounds of divine law - that is the excuse of the slave and the savage. That is not man qua man, that is man qua goblin qua atrocity of some sort waiting to happen (for example, cutting the limbs off live animals).

"So what does all this prove

Leonid's picture

"So what does all this prove Leonid, other than my point?"

It proves that some religious rules had been created by the people for sake of the people, not an animal or goblin, contrary to the modern 21th century trend to put an animal before man. As to the matter in question, there is no way to know which type of killing is preferable from the animal's point of view, so the whole discussion is simply meaningless animal welfarists' exercise. Kosher, halal, stunning, clear shot, lethal injection-one could choose in accordance with his own personal preferences based on the one own prejudices, like religion, animal welfarism, etc...There are no criteria from the objective point of view. The only objective conclusion is that state cannot enforce any particular form of killing. The rest is irrelevant.

After listening to the head

Mark Hubbard's picture

After listening to the head throat slitter advocate interviewed by Larry Williams, my opinion is unchanged.

The reason for the kosher killing is because under their divine bullshit they cannot eat an injured animal - I'm okay to here - and they regard the stunning as causing injury - oh.

So it's cruelty by cause of a definition of a savage goblin's omnipotent wording.

pfui to that.

Thank you Commander ... I

Mark Hubbard's picture

Thank you Commander ... I think. I even have to agree with you on the 'unenlightened barbarian' bit, in the context of your post Eye

Aristo

Richard Wiig's picture

Mark doesn't have to tolerate anything he considers to be intolerable, if by tolerance you mean that he shouldn't voice his disgust. I don't think you will find Mark initiating force against those who kill animals in ways he doesn't approve of. Personally, I don't have any moral concerns over the issue. I think the slitting of throats is probably a fairly quick and painless death. Being chased down and ripped to pieces by pig dogs would be more painful, but I don't even have a problem with people pig hunting. Perhaps that's because I'm an unenlightened barbarian. If someone was to deliberately harm my cat though, then they'd better watch out.

In the absence of science

Mark Hubbard's picture

In the absence of science they had to support this observation by divine authority.

True. And now, thankfully, we're in the 21st century, yet they don't seem aware of it as they are still basing their argument here on divine authority. So what does all this prove Leonid, other than my point?

Aristotle I don't debate with people here who a) don't use a real identity and a photo, and b) take me completely out of context as you have just done - indeed, your name's not Giles? That post certainly has all the hallmarks. (And don't ever, by taking me out of context, attempt to lay an argument I'm a racist, which I'm most certainly not.)

[Um. Although that article stated Halal meat in NZ still was by stunning the animal: if that is not the case, then that is equally despicable.]

@ Mark Hubbard

AristotlesAdvance's picture

There are many pre-conditions of a civilized, free society,

"Tolerance" would be one of them.

but before we get there we’ll need to see, finally, the last priest hanging from the entrails of the last damned god, as that time will denote the end of the age of the savage,

Doesn't sound like you're very tolerant. Have you given up wanting to live in a civilized, free society?

As Voltaire said, those that believe in absurdities become capable of atrocities.

The 20th century, with its secular wars and worldviews murdered well over 100 million innocents (far more than the religious conflicts of the past): Russia/Japan of 1904; Russian Revolution of 1917; WWI; Spanish Civil War; Japanese Invasion of Manchuria; WWII; Soviet Communism; Italian Fascism; Japanese Imperialism; German Nazism; Korea; Vietnam; Desert Storm. None of these were done for the sake of the omnipotent dictates of a savage (non-human) goblin.

And per my original post: in the case of the Jewish community they are wanting to make this decision on the basis of the omnipotent dictates of a savage (non-human) goblin, not on which method is the most humane - and that, lets call it barbarism, for me, is the sole point here. Those that treat animals according to the dictates of an omnipotent goblin, are bound to treat their fellow humans on the same basis, and not man qua man.

That's a statement capable of empirical verification. Do you have evidence that the Jewish community treats its fellow humans with the same cruelty with which you believe it treats animals intended for food?

concerning Halal, at least those animals are still stunned first.

Not so. If the animal is stunned first, then there is at least some room for doubt that it is alive before slaughter (since an animal can die from being stunned). If the animal is dead before slaughter, then it cannot be "halal"; it is, instead, "haram" (forbidden). True "halal" meat, bearing the "halal" seal, comes from animals that were slaughtered without first being stunned.

Anyway, congratulations -- when you buy "halal," you contribute to the Islamization of western culture:

http://blogs.forbes.com/abigai...

Did you intend that as a

Leonid's picture

Did you intend that as a defence of Judaism?

Not as defense but as explanation.

Judaism prohibits to take off any piece, let alone the whole leg from the living animal. If you don't believe me, consult your local rabbi or do some research .However, it puts humans before animals. The purpose of shechita is double: 1. to create a bloodless meat. 2. To inspect animal's entrails for the signs of diseases. As you may know, blood is the media of transmission of the various infections-viruses, bacteria, parasites. Ancient Hebrews obviously didn't know anything about the causes of infectious diseases, but they observed that consumption of bloodless meat reduces the rate of infections. In the absence of science they had to support this observation by divine authority. The inspection of entrails is self-explanatory. Therefore the standard of value beyond shechita is not a goblin or animal welfare, but man's wellbeing. In the pure moral sense such an approach is not barbaric, but much more advanced that current altruist trend to sacrifice man to animals, birds, plants and even landscapes. The role which deity plays in this is irrelevant. The reason beyond certain religious rules is rational, deity was needed only for rationalization.

Judaism strictly prohibits

Mark Hubbard's picture

Judaism strictly prohibits cruelty against animals.

Not on the evidence. And if their barbaric faith said pull the sheep's legs off while it is living, rather than slit the neck and let it bleed to death, then they would have to do that: yes?

But the interesting thing is how you've sidestepped the issue completely, and in a way that I find very confusing (vis a vis your motivation for doing it - did you intend that as a defence of Judaism?). The standard being used by Judaism here is a goblin (the fact that goblin obviously doesn't exist makes this worse, hence the Voltaire quotation in my header post.)

"I have made my own mind up

Leonid's picture

"I have made my own mind up from that of what is cruel and what is not."

And this is your own subjective impression. You don't really know what this animal feels.

"And per my original post: in the case of the Jewish community they are wanting to make this decision on the basis of the omnipotent dictates of a savage (non-human) goblin, not on which method is the most humane - and that, lets call it barbarism, for me, is the sole point here."

Yes, but in fact there is no goblin. People created gods in their likeness and image. Many religious imperatives simply provide divine support for the already established normative social rules like "don't kill, don't steal, be honest" etc... The same applies to the treatment of the animals. Judaism strictly prohibits cruelty against animals.

The real motive which is

Mark Hubbard's picture

The real motive which is behind this debate is guilt of those animal welfarists who want to eat a steak and to keep the sheep. That cannot be done.

The question is only is the animal being killed as humanely as possible. I don't care about the eater's guilt or not, that's irrelevant. I have only the anedotal evidence of being present when an animal has been killed by it's throat being slit, by a bullet, and also a stunning .... I have made my own mind up from that of what is cruel and what is not.

And per my original post: in the case of the Jewish community they are wanting to make this decision on the basis of the omnipotent dictates of a savage (non-human) goblin, not on which method is the most humane - and that, lets call it barbarism, for me, is the sole point here. Those that treat animals according to the dictates of an omnipotent goblin, are bound to treat their fellow humans on the same basis, and not man qua man.

To eat the sheep and to keep it

Leonid's picture

"But, as I said, experience teaches me that no matter how sharp the knife, that while death is still quick, it's not 'nice', 'as painless as a shot',"

Whose experience? I hope, not your own! Truly, that the only sheep itself can know for sure, but it doesn't say. And for a stunning-have you been ever electrocuted?
Animal “rights” activists are essentially anthropocentric, that is-they mechanistically transfer human experience, feelings and thoughts to animals. But animals have different physiology and their neural system is functioning differently. We don’t know and cannot know what an animal really feels, unless we deliberately cause pain. So the whole debate about what kind of killing is preferable from the animal’s point of view is meaningless. The real motive which is behind this debate is a guilt of those animal welfarists who want to eat their steak and to keep the sheep. That cannot be done.

Yadda yadda Leonid. Yeah, if

Mark Hubbard's picture

Yadda yadda Leonid. Yeah, if I think about it, it was discourteous of me in mind of our host, because I should have put in the subject line this post was neither Objectivist or libertarian.

But, as I said, experience teaches me that no matter how sharp the knife, that while death is still quick, it's not 'nice', 'as painless as a shot', or in the context of my post, the same as the animal being stunned senseless first: not a chance. And actually, if you read that article, it also says, quote stunning the animals first was not just humane on the animals, but also on the abattoir workers, as it stopped the animals moving around in a distressed state. "It isn't a pleasant process at the best of times but doing it without stunning makes it harder for workers." So there you go, if it makes you feel better, think of this from human-first perspective; it makes sense on those grounds also.

But that's not the point for me, of course, on this one.

Yes, if push comes to shove, I would obviously kill an animal to feed myself and family, humans are above animals, but this said, if you have a choice of methods to kill an animal and you choose for whatever reason, especially to appease a savage god, to take the method that is less humane, and no matter by what degree, then you are a brute and savage yourself. For me there is then a type of unsubstantiated - but anecdotal - logic that flows, humans that are prepared to be cruel to animals, probably will have far less compunction to initiate force on me, and thus I'm wary of them. (Well no, more that that, I just don't like cruel people, or those that would justify cruelty to make some half-arsed point).

Oy wey!

Leonid's picture

Oy wey! So animal and Yahweh worshipers finally clashed. Nobody asked the poor sheep what it prefers-to die in the ways which Goblin commanded or as it prescribed by the orthodox “animal rights” defenders? The purists among them may decide that a clean shot is also too cruel and the animal should be fully anesthetized before it killed by the lethal injection in the aseptic surgical operation room, while the music of Chopin is solemnly played in the background. Defenders of the Goblin may object that shechita which is performed by the very sharp knife is painless and much more comfortable than a shoot, and in any case Chopin was a goy (a gentile). Alas, the sheep couldn't express any opinion. But if it could, it would say that in the truly free society the owner of the sheep can kill it in any way he pleases, unless he uses especially cruel sadistic procedure. Of course, only the free range sheep would say so, not a clone of the Orwellian sheep from “Animal Farm".

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.