Coyote – I purposefully used the comparison of cosmetics testing. I cannot see any moral difference as cosmetics testing is harming animals for peoples amusement – indirectly but thats what it is. No scientific principle is being tested, no reduction in human suffering is being made.

I’d be interested to hear what form of punishment the “hug mob” would advocate

Quite happy with 120 hours community service and a ban on keeping pets, to be honest. He doesn’t need a hug, and he doesn’t need killing. A non-custodial sentence seems about right. But, having had it drawn to my attention by Gus, I am happy that your compassion and humanity is being offered this opportunity for expression… 😉

TJ, re-read my post. I disagree with animal testing for cosmetics. I believe it to be wrong. However I did say that it *could* be argued that there is a scientific purpose, not that there was a scientific purpose. The scientists doing the work are being paid by cosmetics companies to try and ensure that they don’t get hit by law suits when someone has a bad reaction to shampoo.

Well I did suggest that booze shouldn’t be so widely available…
Then I am for one with BD and TJ. After reading carefully their post it doesn’t seems to me that they advocate the action of the guy who clearly has let the bat invade his belfry; Maybe he needs to see a therapist at some point. One of my riding friend is a vet surgeon and on a regular basis, people call his wife’s vet hospital to ask what to do with the 5 kitten found in the box on the parking of carrefour (replace the last word by asda/tesco). So maybe not an isolated case.

For all of the animal right lover on here that would like to practice the so called mod justice” on him, co you practice the same to vets that:
Castrate animal purely for human convenience?
Cut tails, nails, hears of animals for purely aesthetic convenience?

Animal will never be considered equal as human. First I think that would be wrong after all even before the society and the law, human use to hunt animal for food/entertainment. Human is meant to be at the top of the food chain then maybe you should mob-justice the cat that plays with a mouth for no other purpose than cruelty. Stomp the random stranger in the street that wear leather. Burn your butcher’s shop. And so and so.

Mop justice and violence is just not acceptable in a modern society unless is to reply to a direct threat or to stay safe. That is what actually makes us ‘human’, however I do sometimes wonders. Obviously if it was my kitten I would probably want the guys in an hospital bed, but then I would want revenge. That is why court of law exists. To make sure that justice and not revenge is done.

But hey what do I know.

“Mod Justice”?

“Mop justice”?

I had a nice veal cutlet, Am I evil??

conkerman –
I had a nice veal cutlet, Am I evil??

Not if it was Halal 🙄

I think everyone on here agrees that this bloke committed a nasty and gratuitous act. But I do find the (over)reaction to it puzzling – nasty and gratuitous acts are committed every day, yet usually pass without comment. I suppose it’s entirely consistent with a nation that donates more to the RSPCA than to AIDS charities.

Juan, your English is, and I mean this quite sincerely, a joy to read.

I treasure “mop justice” and “the guy who clearly has let the bat invade his belfry” particularly.

:o)

However, a study incorporating EEG (Electroencephalograph) with electrodes surgically implanted on the skull of 17 sheep and 15 calves, and conducted by Wilhelm Schulze et al. at the University of Veterinary Medicine in Germany concluded that “the slaughter in the form of a ritual cut is, if carried out properly, painless in sheep and calves according to EEG recordings and the missing defensive actions” (of the animals) and that “For sheep, there were in part severe reactions both in bloodletting cut and the pain stimuli” when Captive Bolt Stunning (CBS) was used.[14] This study is cited by the German Constitutional Court in its permitting of dhabiha slaughtering

Stop being such ponces. Animals are slaughtered in this manner every single day, all over the world, and have been throughout Human existence. Oh, but what about the poor little Muntjac, that is brutally killed by Hyenas, who rip it to pieces, after having chased it to exhaustion? FFS…

I think the point here is the unnecessary suffering of an animal, for no purpose other than to cause amusement. That is completely wrong.

I hope the person does reform, and goes on to be a productive member of society. I agree, giving him a good kicking wouldn’t be the ‘right’ thing to do, however tempting.

RudeBoy – Member
Stop being such ponces. Animals are slaughtered in this manner every single day, all over the world, and have been throughout Human existence. Oh, but what about the poor little Muntjac, that is brutally killed by Hyenas, who rip it to pieces, after having chased it to exhaustion? FFS…

So, if I believe an animal should be stunned before having its throat cut in an industrial killing hall – I am a ponce……because that’s not how it’s done in developing countries or in nature? Never mind bolt guns, meat factories could save a fortune by employing Masai tribes men with sharp sticks.

Perhaps we should adopt the same legal system as Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan?

Yeah maybe we should!!

You’re funny…

Read the science bit. It kind of disproves the FAWC’s alarmist claims. Which aren’t actually backed up by science. In both Islam and Judaism, animals must be looked after well, and slaughtered in a way that causes them as little pain and suffering as possible. Besides, as I’ve mentioned before, stunning doesn’t always ensure the animal is even unconcious; many animals actually come round, as they are being hacked up. Clue ‘stunning’ = not instant killing. Merely rendering the animal unconcious.

You don’t have to eat Halal.

BD I did try not to write the mop justice 🙁
However I hope I have not misused “bat in the belfry”

RudeBoy – Member
Yeah maybe we should!!

You’re funny…

Read the science bit. It kind of disproves the FAWC’s alarmist claims. Which aren’t actually backed up by science. In both Islam and Judaism, animals must be looked after well, and slaughtered in a way that causes them as little pain and suffering as possible. Besides, as I’ve mentioned before, stunning doesn’t always ensure the animal is even unconcious; many animals actually come round, as they are being hacked up. Clue ‘stunning’ = not instant killing. Merely rendering the animal unconcious.

You don’t have to eat Halal.

No you’re right – I dont have to eat it. I am taking exception to your assertion that it’s more humane than the killing techniques already employed in most of western Europe.

Stunning doesnt always kill the animal – you are right. But having there throat slashed open…… in exactly the same fashion as halal slaughter……about 10 seconds after they are stunned….most ceertainly does.

What part of this process do you not understand? Animals are stunned ( vast majority killed) by a bolt through the brain. They then have their throats slit (in exactly the same way as halal, the only difference is they are hanging unconcsious and the butchered doesnt pray over them or point them to mecca or wherever). Then they are butchered. Which usually begins with the spinal chord being severed and the head removed. I really cannot see how there can be more chance of an animal being butchered alive with our methods than with islamic methods.

Care to clarify?

Please explain to me how “many animals come round as they are being butchered” after they’ve had a both through the brain, their major arteries slashed and their head cut off?

No, I can’t be bothered, quite frankly, as you’re not bothering to actually use facts in your argument, merely your opinions.

Paté de Fois Gras, anyone?

RudeBoy – Member
No, I can’t be bothered, quite frankly, as you’re not bothering to actually use facts in your argument, merely your opinions.

What’s not factual about my arguement? My “opinions” are based on actually having worked in a killing hall. Or have you just realised that in our (non islamic) method of slaughter we actually make an effort to ensure the animal is dead before slashing its throat therefore rendering your arguement utterly pointless?

I think the point here is the unnecessary suffering of an animal, for no purpose other than to cause amusement.

I’ve been veggie for nearly 30 years now, and am in the rudest of health, so I’d categorise eating animals as a form of amusement rather than necessity.

Gnargnar; if you’re so concerned, why not go ant talk to those who administer Halal or Kosher slaughter? Find out why Muslims and Jews actually kill animals using this method. Go and speak to scientists who’ve carried out the EEG tests on slaughtered animals.

Perhaps we should adopt the same legal system as Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan?

Is your problem more with Islam, than the actual method of slaughter?

I’ve been veggie for nearly 30 years now, and am in the rudest of health

I bet your farts stink, though..

I bet your farts stink, though..

that wouldn’t be enough to swing me back to carrion…

RudeBoy – Member
Gnargnar; if you’re so concerned, why not go ant talk to those who administer Halal or Kosher slaughter? Find out why Muslims and Jews actually kill animals using this method. Go and speak to scientists who’ve carried out the EEG tests on slaughtered animals.

I dont need to talk halal butchers to know that a modern method of slaughter which includes a debilitating, usually fatal blow to the brain is more humane. I’ve seen it with my own eyes. Anyway I dont bloody well eat halal, nor would I advocate it, and I’ll voice my opinion about the relative humanity of it given the opportunity.

Is your problem more with Islam, than the actual method of slaughter?

I have a problem with the religious fundametalists, regardless of their faith. Just because a six hundred year old book states that animals must be slaughtered a certain way doesnt make it so. And the same applies to much of the Koran, as you can see by the often questionable ways that it has been interpreted. I dont agree with theastic regimes at all, so I reject the idea that peoples religious beliefs should be tolerated, even if they are directly at odds with the society in which they live. I doubt I’m alone in thinking that.

Paté de Fois Gras, anyone?

Yummy!

Can I follow that with Lobster, and then maybe some milk fed lamb.

I doubt I’m alone in thinking that.

I doubt you are. Plenty of other ignorant people out there too.

Bored now..

wow, just came upon this one, great thread.

I’ve learned something, I had no idea (Fred) that the bolt thing is intended to kill instantly or STUN the animal first, before being slaughtered. Belt and braces then. Seems more humane to me.

And of course, kittens grow up into cats. And cats kill for fun, cruel bast*rds that they are. Glad the felines in the UK aren’t 3m long and 500lb.

Microwave bloke has obviously crossed a line in our society.
Obvious to me, anyway ….

Paté de Fois Gras, anyone?

There is no such thing. It’s either pâté made of chunks of meat. Or foie gras in such case you do have to get the goose sick first.

Local paper
ok, couldn’t be ar5ed reading the whole thread, but for once, letting him go might be a better punishment. A couple of weeks in jail, easy, out he comes, everyone’s forgotten. He had to be led to safety,he’ll be home tonight, crapping himself skinny. And be a bit worried about a trip to the shops. Out for a pint? Don’t think so.

Funny though that same paper is carrying a story abou a “woman” who was out on the game raising money for drugs whilst her infant child was dying, but no-one seems to be giving much of a monkeys about that.

There is no such thing.

BBSBs got a point the disparity of people reactions to treatment of humans v animals really is upsetting. Mind you I know a lot of people don’t really see the internet as an answerable medium and those shouting for his head probably wouldn’t say the same among real life(TM) associates and friends.

BigDummy seems to have hit the nail on the head.

GnarGnar, yes stunning does seem to be a belt and braces approach seeing as how the animal is going to die anyway but rudeboy’s argument appears to have some science on it’s side showing the method of killing is painless whereas a whack on the head beforehand almost certainly isn’t (unless it does kill not stun)

Yeah, but that’s pate au foie gras!

It’s also “de canard”. Is that normal?

D0NK –

GnarGnar, yes stunning does seem to be a belt and braces approach seeing as how the animal is going to die anyway but rudeboy’s argument appears to have some science on it’s side showing the method of killing is painless whereas a whack on the head beforehand almost certainly isn’t (unless it does kill not stun)

It’s not a whack on the head – it is a retracting steel rod or bolt, fired either either pnematically or with a small charge which drives a rod half an inch in diameter and about 3 inches long into the animals skull lacertaing the brain. There is a similar device which is a concusion stunner, fired by an explosive charge which acts like a hammer blow, this fractures the skull. I’ve never seen this method being used personally. Both techniques are designed to kill/braindamage the animal before it is bled – this is done immediately after stunning so that the beating heart assists in draining the animal of blood.

I cannot see what science there is behind the alternative method at all, never mind science that would suggest it is more humane.

The modern method practiced around the uk

The Islamic method (graphic)

(it’s tagged kosher but the principals are identical).

gnargnar

yes, but you’re forgetting that rudy’s a professional designer who produces dazzling masterpieces on a 10″ fisher price pc.

so obviously he knows more about everything than you. after all, how can personal experience possibly compare with closing your eyes and imagining it?

Cheeze, BBSB; not learned to read stuff propply yet, then? 😀

You love me really…

Gnargnar; there are problems associated with Captive Bolt Stunning, and it’s not always effective.

As you will no doubt know, stunning, rather than instant killing, is used so that the animal is only stunned; it’s heart continues to beat, which aids in the expulsion of as much blood from the body, after sticking. This is necessary, as too much blood in the animal’s body is not a good thing, for it’s processing and storage. Too many toxins and stuff, apparently.

And slaughter in the Kosher/Islamic ‘style’ is still used in many slaughterhouses, and meat that has been bled is preferable, and can command a better price at market. So it’s not just the Muslims…

You seem quite concerned with the welfare of animals; do you eat fish at all?

C’mon, we’ve all seen No Country for Old Men. 🙂

My mum really enjoyed that film. Strange, ‘cos she don’t usually like violent stuff.

RudeBoy –
Gnargnar; there are problems associated with Captive Bolt Stunning, and it’s not always effective.

As you will no doubt know, stunning, rather than instant killing, is used so that the animal is only stunned; it’s heart continues to beat, which aids in the expulsion of as much blood from the body, after sticking. This is necessary, as too much blood in the animal’s body is not a good thing, for it’s processing and storage. Too many toxins and stuff, apparently.

And slaughter in the Kosher/Islamic ‘style’ is still used in many slaughterhouses, and meat that has been bled is preferable, and can command a better price at market. So it’s not just the Muslims…

I think you are getting your wires crossed because of the use of the word stun. The animals are suffering severe brain trauma – they would not recover from this, in the same way that most people who are shot in the head do not recover. Animal welfare people will have you believe that the animal is only “stunned” ie it is still alive and concious out of a neccesity for thorough bleeding, this is not the case as the heart can continue to beat for several minutes after brain death, either way they are stuck almost immediately after “stunning”. The animals are still having muscle spasms twenty minutes after they are sawn in half thusly

That doesnt mean they are still alive. I’ve seen row upon row of eyeballs on hooks twitch half an hour after they’e been plucked from their sockets. I doubt they were watching me.

And yes there are halal slaughter practices going on in the uk – to accomodate the kosher and halal meat markets. If the practice of ritual slaughter is banned, we will probably see a decline in this – the same way stunning with a sledge hammer is no longer allowed. However it would probably be a violation of the religious rights of jews and muslims.

You seem quite concerned with the welfare of animals; do you eat fish at all?

I just consider myself a realist, I’ll eat most animals, but if we are going to kill them we should at least try and make it humane. That is all. Like I said, I’ve seen both methods, neither is pleasant but I find the halal method much more disturbing.

Bearing in mind a micro-wave cooks from the inside outwards. This makes a rather heart-warming story.

Cheeze, BBSB; not learned to read stuff propply yet, then? [:D]

..

As you will no doubt know, stunning, rather than instant killing, is used so that the animal is only stunned; it’s heart continues to beat, which aids in the expulsion of as much blood from the body, after sticking. This is necessary, as too much blood in the animal’s body is not a good thing, for it’s processing and storage. Too many toxins and stuff, apparently.

yes, i did, many years ago, you should try it sometime.

read this

It’s not a whack on the head – it is a retracting steel rod or bolt, fired either either pnematically or with a small charge which drives a rod half an inch in diameter and about 3 inches long into the animals skull lacertaing the brain. There is a similar device which is a concusion stunner, fired by an explosive charge which acts like a hammer blow, this fractures the skull. I’ve never seen this method being used personally. Both techniques are designed to kill/braindamage the animal before it is bled – this is done immediately after stunning so that the beating heart assists in draining the animal of blood.

and ask an adult to explain it to you.

😆 at file not found

In the interests of Bad Taste: