Vegetarians?

^
this is way islam forbids thees things. If the animal is not treated humane then we cannot eat it

 

Well, I usually purchase eco foods only, and I have visited an ecological farm. So no, I don't have any kind of qualms with eating chickens who have lived 70% of their lives outside with healthy foods, or cows who did the same.
Not only that, but I also plan on hunting when I reach the legal age.
Then you know the animal had lived the best and most natural life possible, opposed to what most people get from the supermarket.

[YOUTUBE]w33fvpTcJ80[/YOUTUBE]
That's a fair treatment, they don't feel any pain.

 

Lol animals live in their own shit anyway, but other than that I see why you would not like to eat meat. I've seen plenty of videos and pictures etc. about the way they're treated but it's going to take more than that to make me turn down a perfectly tasty meal. Especially when we're born omnivores. It's not that I don't care and I hope they're killed humanely but food is food.

 

We'd be the only sensible omnivore to do that, and I say sensible because I know rats are cannibals. And cannibalism is a whole different chapter. Also, we're genetically engineered to ensure the survival of our species, and therefore eating your own kind would be insanely stupid.

I'm pretty sure that even though a tiger has the "food is food"-mindset, it doesn't eat every other tiger it sees.

 

I don't ask you this offend this, but isn't the ritual slaughting of animals in the Islam (dhabiha) very painfull for animals. In my country it's even forbidden since last year.

 

This and also eating human flesh can cause a disease called Kuru which can kill you, i'd only eat foods which I would consider safe.

 

I wouldn't exactly call it food if you're going to die when you eat it anyway.

 

lol no normal healthy animal lives in their own shit, except humies ofc.

well instead of eating human flesh you might aswell go choke on arsenic or a bottle filled with a radioactive thingie or why not inhale a cloud of pesticides. that pretty much what you got from humies.

cannibalism makes sense in a way. we are genetically engineered tp ensure the survival of our individual genes. and its important to get enough food to survive the day, why not chomp in on dearly departed? eating your own kind sounds stupid? let say there is a a mother and a somewhat newborn daughter suffering from starvation. the mother can't produce enough milk for the baby and they both will perish. Or the mother eats her child to ensure her own survival for a while longer, till things might be better and food supplies are no longer scarce ad she can give life to another child who will survive instead.

 

Actually animals tend to poop basically anywhere, even in the water that they drink from.

Cannibalism isn't stupid if it's the only choice you have, but like I said it can kill you anyway.

 

as far as I know the only animal to shit and drink in the same place is humans. pigs for example, are considered ffilthy animals, but they are quite cleanly and organised. in a pighouse or whatever its called the pig have designated sleeping and shitting areas.

 

What! No its literally been confirmed to cuase less pain to te animals than electricution or mass sluaghtering. I have killed animals like this and they die in like 10 second if you do it right.
on tip of this a recent study showed that after stunning an animal the animal can still experiance pain. However the muslim way p
got a 0 ratimg on the pain scale and the heart even purifyed the blood of the animal
onfact my sister studied this an look what her school found
Islamic Halal slaughter has increasingly come under attack from animal rights activists telling tales of barbaric blood-thirsty ritual slaughter. There are two distinct issues: there is the vegetarian agenda which wants to ban all consumption of animal products, and there is the animal rights lobby which argues for a humane method of slaughter.


Do animals have rights?

The vegetarian argument is that killing animals for the benefit of humans is cruel and an infringement of their rights. They put both on the same level without conceding any superiority to humans over animals. This argument is seriously flawed, because if animals had rights comparable to those of humans, they must also have equivalent duties. In other words, we must be able to blame them and punish them if they violate the rights of others. It is absurd that it should be considered a crime for humans to kill a sheep, but natural for a lion to do so. The problem stems from a misconception of the role of human life within the animal kingdom: a denial of purposeful creation within a clearly defined hierarchy degrades humans to the level of any other creature. Yet even then, the argument is illogical: Why should plants, for example, be denied the same protection from a violation of the sanctity of their life?


Is Islamic slaughter cruel?

The question of how an animal should be slaughtered to avoid cruelty is a different one. It is true that when the blood flows from the throat of an animal it looks violent, but just because meat is now bought neatly and hygienically packaged on supermarket shelves does not mean the animal didn’t have to die? Non-Islamic slaughter methods dictate that the animal should be rendered unconscious before slaughter. This is usually achieved by stunning or electrocution. Is it less painful to shoot a bolt into a sheep’s brain or to ring a chicken’s neck than to slit its throat? To watch the procedure does not objectively tell us what the animal feels.


The scientific facts

A team at the university of Hannover in Germany examined these claims through the use of EEG and ECG records during slaughter. Several electrodes were surgically implanted at various points of the skull of all the animals used in the experiment and they were then allowed to recover for several weeks. Some of the animals were subsequently slaughtered the halal way by making a swift, deep incision with a sharp knife on the neck, cutting the jugular veins and carotid arteries of both sides together with the trachea and esophagus but leaving the spinal cord intact. The remainder were stunned before slaughter using a captive bolt pistol method as is customary in Western slaughterhouses. The EEG and ECG recordings allowed to monitor the condition of the brain and heart throughout.


The Halal method

With the halal method of slaughter, there was not change in the EEG graph for the first three seconds after the incision was made, indicating that the animal did not feel any pain from the cut itself. This is not surprising. Often, if we cut ourselves with a sharp implement, we do not notice until some time later. The following three seconds were characterised by a condition of deep sleep-like unconciousness brought about by the draining of large quantities of blood from the body. Thereafter the EEG recorded a zero reading, indicating no pain at all, yet at that time the heart was still beating and the body convulsing vigorously as a reflex reaction of the spinal cord. It is this phase which is most unpleasant to onlookers who are falsely convinced that the animal suffers whilst its brain does actually no longer record any sensual messages.


The Western method

Using the Western method, the animals were apparently unconscious after stunning, and this method of dispatch would appear to be much more peaceful for the onlooker. However, the EEG readings indicated severe pain immediately after stunning. Whereas in the first example, the animal ceases to feel pain due to the brain starvation of blood and oxygen – a brain death, to put it in laymen’s terms – the second example first causes a stoppage of the heart whilst the animal still feels pain. However, there are no unsightly convulsions, which not only means that there is more blood retention in the meat, but also that this method lends itself much more conveniently to the efficiency demands of modern mass slaughter procedures. It is so much easier to dispatch an animal on the conveyor belt, if it does not move.


Appearances can deceive

Not all is what it seems, then. Those who want to outlaw Islamic slaughter, arguing for a humane method of killing animals for food, are actually more concerned about the feelings of people than those of the animals on whose behalf they appear to speak. The stunning method makes mass butchery easier and looks more palatable for the consumer who can deceive himself that the animal did not feel any pain when he goes to buy his cleanly wrapped parcel of meat from the supermarket. Islamic slaughter, on the other hand, does not try to deny that meat consumption means that animals have to die, but is designed to ensure that their loss of life is achieved with a minimum amount of pain.

 

Wow, thanks for the intel, Stalker. Very interesting, and very surprising. I must admit that I would be one of those who believes that it's more painful to cut their throats, but that's obviously wrong, according to this text. Thanks

 

Guys i've decided to become non-smoker for my 29-th birthday which is just two days away.Please don't make me to become vegetarian too!

 

F*cking hell, youre a bunch of ignorant b*stards. Bamul opens a thread to see if anyone SHARES his viewpoint, and all you do is put his choice to the test. You post everything from meat based recipes to what methods of slaughter are acceptable. You should be f*cking ashamed of yourselves. i dont come here to read sh*t like this, this is a metro forum in case anyone had forgotten. i suggest this, and the religion thread should be locked. And if anyone ever starts a politics thread, close that too.

 

You, sir, are not much better yourself when posting such a respectless immature respond to this. This forum is designated for the growth and socializement of the community and its members, and is not only based on the Metro game. That is not up for you to choose. If you came here to read and post about metro, then why are you in the General discussion section? This is where posts who are unrelated to Metro goes, and if you're not a fan of that, then I suggest that you stay to the metro-related subforums.

 

What the hell? Maybe you should calm down a bit. We are not fighting here just having a conversation and sharing an opinion.
If you're having problem with that maybe it's time for you to leave.