Anyone ever slaughtered a goat/lamb ?

[R3SISTANC3]

Livestock are sentient beings? Hmmmmmm......

It is all about cultural and moral bais, it's all about perspective here and those who are predisposed with societal influence in regards to the matter. There is no right and wrong, at least not objectively. The rest is all opinion.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

If livestock were not sentient beings why are there certain guidelines in Islamic slaughter required like, the treatment of animals?

[R3SISTANC3]

If livestock were not sentient beings why are there certain guidelines in Islamic slaughter required like, the treatment of animals?

There are guidelines on how to operate a vehicle, doesn't mean it's sentient. Sentient beings are self aware, aware of existence and the universe. The Islamic guidelines are in place because animals are alive, just like trees and plants for which there are also Islamic guidelines. But they are not sentient beings, they are not aware of their existence, of death, of life, of good or bad. They do not procreate just to create life, nor do they commit suicide to end theirs. They react out of instinct not out of thought or reason.

There are self learning computer applications, they attack, multiple, hide, and avoid capture....but they are not sentient. The day they do become sentient....Matrix time baby.

[Tor Gul]

name one country where you will be charged with murder for killing an animal. not even killing a sacred cow in india will get you charged with murder. depending on the circumstances you might be charged with a whole host of things but not murder. the fact that EVERY society in the world has chosen to define murder as unlawful killing of a human being, means that you cannot murder an animal. in fact i was pretty sure it was only a small subset of highly delusional western liberals that even tried to apply the word to the killing of animals.

No you're presenting straw man argument, I said we live in a society with an abundant supply of plant based resources; This is much different than producing our own fruits and vegetables; You have a hard time with reading comprehension it seems. Just mindlessly parroting whatever you were brainwashed with, never having any analytical response.

I AM talking about large scale farming in order to feed the population of the country as a whole and that is clearly evident by explanation of Latin America as a primary produce source for the USA. maybe you need to take some more ESL classes so you can comprehend what you're reading.

There is no "necessity" to kill the animals, this is a False Causation Fallacy. Industrial Farming is a separate issue altogether, the point still stands that vegetarian diets are possible and plant based resources are available.

in theory the bold is correct, but in order to have a vegetarian diet you have to have vegetarian food to eat. it really is not possible to raise a crop in the USA w/o having some form of wildlife eating/destroying at least part of it. in some locations certain wildlife WILL destroy an entire crop if they are not killed off to a certain level. I have personally witnessed two feral hogs destroy 40 acres of corn (maize) in one night (my mother's family includes several dirt farmers). i've seen a small farmer have to replant an entire 100 acre field in soybeans after deer hit it one night. I've seen jack rabbits(american hare) wipeout 35 acres of a 200 acre wheat field in a week. fencing is not a realistic option as a truly hog proof fence would require a minimum of 3 feet of buried fence to prevent digging in & at least 8 ft above ground (i have seen a 200# wild boar jump a 6 ft fence on a pen trap). to make the same fence deer proof you'd have to add 4 feet to it's height. to make that fence bear & raccoon proof you'd have to add a hotwire (electrified wire) to the top. even then a bear still might rip the wire down and come in anyway.
the simple fact is YOU are just NOT WILLING to accept the FACT that animals (even if it's only rats & mice) MUST be killed in order for you to go to the market and buy your vegetarian foods. despite your walt disney beliefs, you cannot talk the animals out of eating the crops. no matter how good the mast crop is in the woods, the very fact that they naturally try to vary their diets means the deer will visit the corn (maize) to balance out the greenbrier, poke shoots, and brambles they have already eaten.

The argument is about necessity; if people like you mismanage soil and resources; this is the fault of the managers, not the dietary production. There is no scientific principle that requires plant food production to kill animals. The problem is clearly people like yourself. You even admit it, you were involved in poor land management.

to borrow your favorite phrase, this is a red herring argument. killing wildlife eating a crop has absolutely nothing to do with soil management. in point of fact alternating crops between legumes like peanuts & heavy nitrogen feeders like corn (like this particular farmer was doing) so you don't have to use a bunch of chemical fertilizers IS good soil & resource management.

hard to have much faith in a study that specifically says you'll HAVE to consume a peice of crushed rock modified by various chemicals into a synthetic version of a vitamin naturally found in actual meat foods. because oh, yeah THAT is TOTALLY NATURAL.
since you believe in evilution, here is a study that says the eating of meat is why we're not all swinging from trees, flinging feces and engaging in rampant homsexual activities (like a chimpanzee).
http://people.bu.edu/sobieraj/nutrit...Nutrition.html
and another
http://www.cast.uark.edu/local/icaes...aton/eaton.htm
and another
http://berkeley.edu/news/media/relea...-14-1999a.html

[RevolutionThroughReason]

There are guidelines on how to operate a vehicle, doesn't mean it's sentient. Sentient beings are self aware, aware of existence and the universe. The Islamic guidelines are in place because animals are alive, just like trees and plants for which there are also Islamic guidelines. But they are not sentient beings, they are not aware of their existence, of death, of life, of good or bad. They do not procreate just to create life, nor do they commit suicide to end theirs. They react out of instinct not out of thought or reason.

There are self learning computer applications, they attack, multiple, hide, and avoid capture....but they are not sentient. The day they do become sentient....Matrix time baby.

I Think you need to examine the definition of sentient, the Post Capitalistic notions of nature and other organisms as mere "mindless" flesh machines. is flawed

sen·tient   [sen-shuhnt] Show IPA
adjective
1.
having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.
2.
characterized by sensation and consciousness.

This is faculty possessed by any organism with a central nervous system. What you claim to be merely mechanistic instinct would apply for humans as well However if either humans were merely just "running on instinct", they would only exhibit exact repetitiions of behavior.

Plants and animals are alive, yet the guidelines for how you prepare or kill a plant are as if they were inanimate, not so with animal life. The Islamic standards correspond to the well being and compassion. There is no such standard of compassion for an mindless object such as a car or a sentientless object such as a plant.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

name one country where you will be charged with murder for killing an animal. not even killing a sacred cow in india will get you charged with murder.

I think your brain shuts down when you're challenged by refutating views. I stated that there are more than one definition for murder than merely the legal context. You can murder animals, the legality of which is another issue entirely.

I AM talking about large scale farming in order to feed the population of the country as a whole and that is clearly evident by explanation of Latin America as a primary produce source for the USA.

You don't need large scale farming for that though, There are many viable and actually preferable horticultural methods. It's People who follow this Unscientific dogma that farming must include wasteful use of land like yourself that create that problem. Not vegetarian diets.

maybe you need to take some more ESL classes so you can comprehend what you're reading.

Is this why every response you make is a straw man argument? or you have very absurd logical fallacies in your responses?




i

n theory the bold is correct, but in order to have a vegetarian diet you have to have vegetarian food to eat. it really is not possible to raise a crop in the USA w/o having some form of wildlife eating/destroying at least part of it.

You have not presented any data why it would be "impossible" to have viable agriculture in any such instance.

in some locations certain wildlife WILL destroy an entire crop if they are not killed off to a certain level

data not rhetoric ......you NEVER present data and that's what's intellectually dishonest in your claims. I have presented data several times.

. I have personally witnessed two feral hogs destroy 40 acres of corn (maize) in one night (my mother's family includes several dirt farmers). i've seen a small farmer have to replant an entire 100 acre field in soybeans after deer hit it one night.

Anecdotes mean nothing in science.

the simple fact is YOU are just NOT WILLING to accept the FACT that animals (even if it's only rats & mice) MUST be killed in order for you to go to the market and buy your vegetarian foods.

You can't rubber stamp claims as "fact" just because you want them to be. We're not debating whether animals eat crops, we're debating if your poor land management skills mean that animals must die in every case to have a viable agricultural yield.

to borrow your favorite phrase, this is a red herring argument. killing wildlife eating a crop has absolutely nothing to do with soil management.

It does, the way you manage soil resources determine how much soil needs to be used, and that changes the proportion of rodents and such coming to eat crops. This is simple Mathematics. I really can't believe you have no understanding of how environmental dynamics work.

in point of fact alternating crops between legumes like peanuts & heavy nitrogen feeders like corn (like this particular farmer was doing) so you don't have to use a bunch of chemical fertilizers IS good soil & resource management.

Now this is a red herring.

hard to have much faith in a study that specifically says you'll HAVE to consume a peice of crushed rock modified by various chemicals into a synthetic version of a vitamin naturally found in actual meat foods. because oh, yeah THAT is TOTALLY NATURAL.

You're arguing the Naturalistic Fallacy, we're in a technologically advanced society, we should use that technology with wisdom. It's much wiser to use those resources to produce nutrients, rather than clumsily use land.

None the less you're denying science; rejecting scientific data to serve your dogma, this is just poor education and blind faith on your part.

since you believe in evilution, here is a study that says the eating of meat is why we're not all swinging from trees, flinging feces and engaging in rampant homsexual activities (like a chimpanzee).
[]

I don't deny that meat consumption is apart of human evolutionary adaptations, but we're no lnger in that phase of evolutionary niche that needs to depend on that, at least not in an industrial society. We're not going to evolutionarily "regress" due to not eating meat, We now have access to nutrient dense resources which means the benefits of meat eating will now become marginal and unnecessary.

you should have a deeper understanding of what it means to EVOLVE, we've evolving out of a the need to eat meat.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

evidence demonstrating that even when we factor in your assumptions about the animals that maybe killed during plant based agriculture production


the harm done to animals is MUCH less.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1253172

Food Fight! Davis versus Regan on the Ethics of Eating Beef


Andy Lamey
Monash University

August 25, 2008

Journal of Social Philosophy, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 331-348, Summer 2007

Abstract:
One of the starting assumptions in the debate over the ethical status of animals is that someone who is committed to reducing animal suffering should not eat meat. Steven Davis has recently advanced a novel criticism of this view. He argues that individuals who are committed to reducing animal suffering should not adopt a vegetarian or vegan diet, as Tom Regan an other animal rights advocates claim, but one containing free-range beef. To make his case Davis highlights an overlooked form of animal harm, that done to field animals in crop production. Yet while Davis's argument is ingenious and thought-provoking, it is not a successful challenge to vegetarianism and veganism's status as the diets that most advance animal rights. Scientific studies of crop production that Davis draws on document two different forms of harm done to field animals: those that are directly killed by harvesting equipment and those that are killed by other animals. Once this distinction is made explicit, the degree to which such studies pose a problem for animal protection theory considerably weakens. Davis also overlooks philosophically significant forms of harm to human beings that are present in beef production but not crop harvesting. Finally, he bases his argument on the controversial assumption that there is no difference between deliberate and accidental killing - either of animals or people. Although these problems defeat Davis's attempt to offer an immanent critique of Regan's animal rights position, his analysis does have important dietary ramifications that animal advocates should take into account.

[faye]

i go fishing and cut the throats of the fish i will eat. i do it quickly to hopefully ease the length of their suffering but when i went fishing with aboriginal australians, they let the fish die slowly. it made me wonder if it is best for the fish to die and the spirit to leave, suddenly or slowly.

[Afghanistan2010]

Why you slaughter fish ?hit it with something that it dies fast,or stab him right in the head.

[faye]

listen 2010,it is lovely of you to show me such attention. i am sooooo flattered, but i need a gay parisian's advice on how to kill fish, like i need a hole in the head. have you even seen a live fish?
by cutting it's throat, it bleeds it.

[Afghanistan2010]

I have never slaughtered a fish nor i have seen ever someone slaughtering a fish...it sounded new to me,thats why i advised you on the issue.

By the way,paris is not such gay as you except,i can say for sure there are more females than males,there might some areas where there are more gays but where i am i have not seen them nor heared of them much.Aslong as you are not gay no problems.

[faye]

i only stir you with that 2010. the gay was originally more to do with the gaiety and nightlife of paris, not homosexuality
i also cut the throats of eels and hang them up by the tail to bleed them, before cooking them in the coals. better taste even than fish, i reckon.

[Hakim Khan Urgonai]

Why you slaughter fish ?hit it with something that it dies fast,or stab him right in the head.

Yes. Hitting it on the head is the correct way, I believe.

[Tor Gul]

I think your brain shuts down when you're challenged by refutating views. I stated that there are more than one definition for murder than merely the legal context. You can murder animals, the legality of which is another issue entirely.

in order for a definition to change in a dictionary the MAJORITY of the people speaking that language must accept as appropriate the misuse of that word. there is no reference to the killing of animals under murder in the merriam-webster or oxford (the two apex scholarly dictionaries of the english language) because the MAJORITY of english speakers do not accept this misuse as appropriate. therefore you cannot murder an animal. this willful misuse originated with & is accepted ONLY by the minority community of animal rights extremists seeking to philosophically, morally & LEGALLY equate animals to human beings.
being one of these animal rights extremists you will simply refuse to accept this truth and vomit up more nonsense in a misdirectional tangent

You don't need large scale farming for that though, There are many viable and actually preferable horticultural methods. It's People who follow this Unscientific dogma that farming must include wasteful use of land like yourself that create that problem. Not vegetarian diets.
Is this why every response you make is a straw man argument? or you have very absurd logical fallacies in your responses?

noone will ever match your penchant for strawman arguments & logical fallacies, for example both contemporary & archaeological evidence proves unequivocally that advanced societies cannot exist without large scale farming by a minority of the population producing sufficient surplus to free up other members of society to pursue alternate labors like metalurgy, engineering & medicine (which is why hutus in rwanda don't build nuclear reactors). this has been irrefutably knowledge for more than half a century.
you cannot name a single method of horticulture/agriculture that does not cause the death of some animal directly and/or indirectly.
a vegetarian diet is predicated on edible vegetation, which on a social scale is predicated large scale farming.

You have not presented any data why it would be "impossible" to have viable agriculture in any such instance.
data not rhetoric ......you NEVER present data and that's what's intellectually dishonest in your claims. I have presented data several times.

you like insisting on data, how about you show some data on viable agriculture that doesn't cause the direct or indirect death of some animal.

Anecdotes mean nothing in science.

eyewitness accounts indicate personal experience in the area of discussion as opposed to arguments based only on theories developed in western colleges by delusional students trying to bend science to their preconcieved agenda.

You can't rubber stamp claims as "fact" just because you want them to be. We're not debating whether animals eat crops, we're debating if your poor land management skills mean that animals must die in every case to have a viable agricultural yield.

your refusal to accept reality does not make it less true that there is no viable means of agriculture that will support any population that does not involve killing some kind of animal to some degree. if one existed you'd have trotted it out by now & I would enthusiastically support a shift to that method.

It does, the way you manage soil resources determine how much soil needs to be used, and that changes the proportion of rodents and such coming to eat crops. This is simple Mathematics. I really can't believe you have no understanding of how environmental dynamics work.

you just contradicted yourself, as i said before no amount of soil management stop animals from eating crops. the mathematics lay only in how much gets eaten based on how you protect the crop. the more aggressively you protect the less gets eaten. you will never protect 100% of your crop but you can never have any kind of farming (even if just for your personal use only) that will not cause the death of at least one animal directly or indirectly.

Now this is a red herring.
You're arguing the Naturalistic Fallacy, we're in a technologically advanced society, we should use that technology with wisdom. It's much wiser to use those resources to produce nutrients, rather than clumsily use land.

you're arguing the fallacy that humans exist or can exist completely seperate from nature. the fact is to synthesize those vitamins rocks have to be mined, THAT kills animals, industrial chemical processes have to be applied which produces toxic wastes, THAT also kills animals. please explain how a natural diet for animals is good but a natural diet for people is bad is a LOGICAL or scientifically valid viewpoint and support it with data.

None the less you're denying science; rejecting scientific data to serve your dogma, this is just poor education and blind faith on your part.

says the lady who quoted the journal of social PHILOSPHY to support their "scientific" argument.

I don't deny that meat consumption is apart of human evolutionary adaptations, but we're no lnger in that phase of evolutionary niche that needs to depend on that, at least not in an industrial society. We're not going to evolutionarily "regress" due to not eating meat, We now have access to nutrient dense resources which means the benefits of meat eating will now become marginal and unnecessary.

you should have a deeper understanding of what it means to EVOLVE, we've evolving out of a the need to eat meat.

that is simply not true, medical science has proven conclusively that eating meat as PART of a well balanced diet is necessary for the optimum health & development of MOST of humanity. likewise medical science has proven that over consumption of any aspect of the human diet is detrimental to health.

[Tor Gul]

evidence demonstrating that even when we factor in your assumptions about the animals that maybe killed during plant based agriculture production


the harm done to animals is MUCH less.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=1253172

it doesn't matter if you kill one animal in order to raise your vegetables or a thousand to eat them, YOU ARE STILL KILLING ANIMALS TO SURVIVE.