• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New Slaughtering Rules Pit Dutch Religious Freedoms Against Animal Rights

jmotivator said:
Oh, broooooother. Your argument is self defeating. The choice to make a food animal's rights greater than those of a human being is simply imposing your beliefs on others. You are the monster you fear.
Click to expand...

Actually, this is not a question of human verses animal rights, this is a question of animal rights verses god, for lack of a better description. Clearly you think that someone claiming to believe in an arbitrary superstition endows believers with the right to be cruel. I disagree. There is an attitude amongst many of the faithful that their own hyperbolic spiritual entitlement includes not just free rein to proselytize and lie to everyone but that their entitlement extends to acts of violence.

I have a limit for how much I will patronize the magical hysteria of theists. That limit is harm. When a person feels they have a right to beliefs that are contradicted by established science, they are choosing an anti- intellectual god. When they feel authorized to ignore evolved moral processes in society, they have chosen an ethically ambivalent god. When they persist in practices, based upon traditions, with no concern about whether it is cruel, only whether it complies with the dictates of arbitrary faith, they have chosen a cruel god.

I am constantly stunned by the unapologetic idiocy of those who claim a higher power is theirs. If the spiritual anachronisms of our time can only gather meaning from the past, they are sentencing the rest of us to a dark future. To them I ask what kind of loving god would demand that we stagnate in a changing universe?

I'll tell you what kind, an imaginary one.
 
D_NATURED said:
Actually, this is not a question of human verses animal rights, this is a question of animal rights verses god, for lack of a better description.
Click to expand...

Your argument is self defeating. The claim by those opposing this law is that it is an attack on religion. Your defense of the law is "Religion is stupit! THer is no god!" .... so good job proving our point! :lamo


Clearly you think that someone claiming to believe in an arbitrary superstition endows believers with the right to be cruel. I disagree. There is an attitude amongst many of the faithful that their own hyperbolic spiritual entitlement includes not just free rein to proselytize and lie to everyone but that their entitlement extends to acts of violence.
Click to expand...

Clearly you build some awful straw men. Kosher butchery isn't cruel. When done properly the animal is rendered unconscious immediately, and dies shortly thereafter. The modern way is zapping it with electricity to incapacitate it and drive a metal spike into its brain. Is that more humane? The whole point of kosher preparation is to cleanly and humanely kill and butcher an animal. Your hatred for religion has made you ignorant of actual facts... again.

I have a limit for how much I will patr... blah blah blah
Click to expand...

Did you say something?
 
JMaximus said:
Probably should avoid commercial meat altogether then...

Either way, though, it's your choice. Others choose differently. And on this matter, at least, no one has offered any compelling reason why that choice should be restricted in the manner proposed by the Dutch laws.
Click to expand...

Nah, commercial meat is fine here. And animal welfare and food safety are the compelling reasons why the law is the way it is.
 
JANFU said:
Morning Peter
No, some have decided. If it did indeed create so much harm it would be prohibited. I am sure that Jews, Muslims, Christians and others have the freedom to practice their religion without State interference.
Click to expand...

No, the elected officials as voted by the public have decided this. Also, society in the Netherlands has no issue with respecting religious rights but not at the expense of food safety or animal welfare.
 
D_NATURED said:
No, there is an evolving moral sense among our kind that ultimately attempts to minimize suffering, even in those beings we intend to consume. Yet, once again, the holy spokesmen for the super natural fail to understand that religion is not a license to perpetuate a traditional stupidity, it is our duty as spiritual beings to oppose it.
Click to expand...

I wonder what other parts of the Constitution you would send to the dust bin?
I take it you live in a country that has freedom of religion, and protections? Yes- No-
 
Peter King said:
No, the elected officials as voted by the public have decided this. Also, society in the Netherlands has no issue with respecting religious rights but not at the expense of food safety or animal welfare.
Click to expand...

How many cases of contaminated meats from Kosher-Halal butchers?
And from a quick search the EU Court of Justice is hearing cases on Wallonias banning of Kosher slaughter?

https://halalfocus.net/eu-slaughter-rules-do-not-curb-halal-kosher-practices-top-court-adviser-says/
 
JANFU said:
How many cases of contaminated meats from Kosher-Halal butchers?
And from a quick search the EU Court of Justice is hearing cases on Wallonias banning of Kosher slaughter?

https://halalfocus.net/eu-slaughter-rules-do-not-curb-halal-kosher-practices-top-court-adviser-says/
Click to expand...

Well, we are not Wallonia or Vlaanderen (Flemish). Well the UK had a lot of issues of fake Halal meats, crooks are everywhere. Also people need to be properly trained and in the past that has not always been the case.
 
Peter King said:
Well, we are not Wallonia or Vlaanderen (Flemish). Well the UK had a lot of issues of fake Halal meats, crooks are everywhere. Also people need to be properly trained and in the past that has not always been the case.
Click to expand...

And the same from regular meat suppliers. IIRC there was an issue in the EU of horse meat being used as a sub for other products.
 
JANFU said:
And the same from regular meat suppliers. IIRC there was an issue in the EU of horse meat being used as a sub for other products.
Click to expand...

Yup, but that was fraud/illegal so not something regularly done by slaughter houses but by crooked traders.

The guy was sentenced to 2.5 years in jail. He had to pay a fine and the prosecution is waiting until the appeals process is over before they start "fleecing" him, the money he has gained from his illegal trading will be taken from him, if he does not have that kind of money his house, cars, valuables, etc. etc. etc. will be seized and sold.

After his company was closed, there was a huge stock of meat he was planning to sell as beef (even though it was horse) and due a medication (fenylbutazon) for horses that was found in the meat, it was deemed unfit for human consumption so it was sold for zoo animal consumption and for other meat eating animals.

The biggest issue the Dutch authorities was that he tainted the trust of people in the meat trade and that is something the government greatly disapproved of. People have to trust their food production and people who taint that will be prosecuted and fleeced off their criminal profits.
 
jmotivator said:
Your argument is self defeating. The claim by those opposing this law is that it is an attack on religion. Your defense of the law is "Religion is stupit! THer is no god!" .... so good job proving our point! :lamo
Click to expand...

Keep laughing, it makes you look silly not to see the obvious. Namely, that there is a difference between attacking religion and attacking cruelty. If you can't separate your religion from cruelty, you prove MY point, that religion is ****. Checkmate.

Clearly you build some awful straw men.
Click to expand...

Calling the truth awful doesn't make it a lie. You have already established that you believe the faithful should have a right to slaughter animals in a more cruel way, strictly because of their faith. What is awful is your ability to refute my point that the religious feel entitled to cruelty.

Kosher butchery isn't cruel. When done properly the animal is rendered unconscious immediately, and dies shortly thereafter. The modern way is zapping it with electricity to incapacitate it and drive a metal spike into its brain. Is that more humane?
Click to expand...

Possibly, but until we find proof that one way is better than others, we should consider the opinions of veterinarians or ranchers rather than clergy. What I can't stomach is the idea that an animal should suffer more than necessary because the religious demand a double standard in all things.

The whole point of kosher preparation is to cleanly and humanely kill and butcher an animal. Your hatred for religion has made you ignorant of actual facts... again.
Click to expand...

Yeah, well your hatred for modern technology has made you ignorant in general. Religion is NOT a source of exemption from any law...or shouldn't be.


Did you say something?
Click to expand...

Yes, and it obviously cut deep.
 
jmotivator said:
Yeah, in fact Kosher and Halal butchery is what really gave mankind a taste for humanely killed animals. An animal killed while in distress is very gamey as the muscle still holds the adrenaline that was running through them at the time of death. You can tell the skill of a bow hunter by their product for that reason.

If you really want to take a stand for humane treatment of livestock then kosher and halal are the last places to look. I would start with the horrors of South Easter medicine first, where some "cures" using animal remains require that the animal die in a state of panic. I once knew a woman from Thailand who was prescribed a daily dose of parakeet for her depression by an Chinese doctor who used old Chinese medicines... the thing was he would burn the parakeets alive in a kiln because it was believed that the adrenaline of a bird was a cure for depression, and that a bird needed to die while hopped up on adrenaline for it to be effective.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I would use that particular ancient belief to justify another.
 
JANFU said:
I wonder what other parts of the Constitution you would send to the dust bin?
I take it you live in a country that has freedom of religion, and protections? Yes- No-
Click to expand...

That's hilarious. You know, the way you seem to demand religious cruelty as your right. I don't know what constitution you have but mine is the American constitution and while freedom of conscience is a right, freedom of action is not. Here, even animals have a right not to be tortured needlessly for a god that even they are smart enough not to worship.

Besides, what is clearly missing in all of this is the concept of rights having responsibilities. The religious are too often not at all responsible for what they do, they're just following orders from god. That disregard for any consequences is the heart of their sin.

So, take your Christian martyrdom and try this tripe on someone who can't see through your entitled imagination. Nobody is taking away your god, because that's in your head. We are just demanding that you practice your faith in a way that isn't harmful to anyone or anything. You see, it's WE the people not WE the disciples. We are people first and our collective laws matter more than any individual fantasy, and no right can change that. The first amendment does not create a theocracy, it prevents it.

It's when faith moves from the personal and the rhetorical to the physical that it challenges civility, every time.
 
trblmkr said:
I'm not sure I would use that particular ancient belief to justify another.
Click to expand...

One was developed over thousands of years specifically geared towards minimizing the suffering of the animal, the other was devised specifically to encourage the suffering of the animal.
 
Peter King said:
Nah, commercial meat is fine here. And animal welfare and food safety are the compelling reasons why the law is the way it is.
Click to expand...

???

I'm glad you are happy with the food you eat.

But "animal welfare and food safety" are too vague to be compelling reasons for anything.

You'll need to add some details to your argument...
 
JMaximus said:
???

I'm glad you are happy with the food you eat.

But "animal welfare and food safety" are too vague to be compelling reasons for anything.

You'll need to add some details to your argument...
Click to expand...

Why? Food safety is about the most compelling reason to do most things that have to do with the food industry and the voting public cares for the welfare of animals and does not approve of chickens who are unable to walk due to the immense weight they pack on in weeks, on how chickens and animals for food production are held. That wish of the public is also known to our politicians who thus have made laws and rules to "please" the public.
 
Peter King said:
Why? Food safety is about the most compelling reason to do most things that have to do with the food industry ...
Click to expand...

I mean...

You need to show how the regulations provide for an appreciable increase in food safety and why that increase is important enough to restrict basic freedom of choice.

A place to start might be demonstrating a higher rate of adverse reaction (for example, food poisoning) to kosher-killed meat vs non-kosher-killed.

... the voting public cares for the welfare of animals and does not approve of chickens who are unable to walk due to the immense weight they pack on in weeks, on how chickens and animals for food production are held. That wish of the public is also known to our politicians who thus have made laws and rules to "please" the public.
Click to expand...

That argument is laughable at best in consideration of the fact that said public is indifferent to the same animals being executed and their flesh served to them on a plate.

It becomes even more ridiculous when it comes to how the animal is to be slaughtered - suffering is surely the lesser worry to a creature about to be killed.

It's almost impossible to consider the argument as anything other than a pretext to restrict the freedoms of others, especially in light of the regulations' disproportionate impact on religious minorities.
 
JMaximus said:
I mean...

You need to show how the regulations provide for an appreciable increase in food safety and why that increase is important enough to restrict basic freedom of choice.

A place to start might be demonstrating a higher rate of adverse reaction (for example, food poisoning) to kosher-killed meat vs non-kosher-killed.
Click to expand...

I need to show? Yeah, that is what food and health inspectors are for, they make sure health and safety standards for food production are adhered too.

JMaximus said:
That argument is laughable at best in consideration of the fact that said public is indifferent to the same animals being executed and their flesh served to them on a plate.

It becomes even more ridiculous when it comes to how the animal is to be slaughtered - suffering is surely the lesser worry to a creature about to be killed.

It's almost impossible to consider the argument as anything other than a pretext to restrict the freedoms of others, especially in light of the regulations' disproportionate impact on religious minorities.
Click to expand...

:roll:

Sure, you know how the Dutch feel about their food and about how meat is produced/animal welfare.

Well, so we should not care about food/health safety and animal welfare just because some people want to butcher meat in a certain way? No, you negotiate with them if possible to make sure that both their religious needs are met without violating our animal welfare views and food safety.
 
Peter King said:
I need to show? Yeah, that is what food and health inspectors are for, they make sure health and safety standards for food production are adhered too.
Click to expand...

That doesn't add anything.

Why and how do the regulations provide for food safety?


Well, so we should not care about food/health safety and animal welfare just because some people want to butcher meat in a certain way?
Click to expand...

That's a non-response. In fact, it's a rather juvenile retreat from dealing with the meat of your position - no pun intended.

... our animal welfare views and food safety.
Click to expand...

Neither of which you can provide an even halfway decent account of.

The animal welfare angle is obvious BS for the reasons already given. And you haven't yet offered even one way that the regulations improve food safety.
 
jmotivator said:
One was developed over thousands of years specifically geared towards minimizing the suffering of the animal, the other was devised specifically to encourage the suffering of the animal.
Click to expand...

I'm still picturing someone dancing around a fire with a goat's head.
Look, I grew up a farm boy. We slaughtered chickens, rabbits, cattle, sheep. I used the spinning technique on chickens, a V-board for the rabbits, and a 22 between the eyes for the larger critters. They never saw it coming. Usually. I remember a steer whose brain must have been located somewhere else who died a poor, drawn out death. I remember a rabbit that I guess I didn't have quite right and when I jerked, it started screaming and thrashing. It sounded like a year old baby. Freaked me the hell out and it was a while before I could do it again.
I don't believe that bleeding out is the wonderfully painless experience for the animal some would paint it to be.
The FDA rules for slaughter houses are not what they could be, but dying and sick animals are not supposed to be in the yard. That is a violation. The trip to the kill box isn't pretty, but a bolt to the head is however, a quick and painless death. Most all of the time.
 
JMaximus said:
That doesn't add anything.

Why and how do the regulations provide for food safety?
Click to expand...

Yes, how and why would food safety rules and mandatory checkups, investigations into violations of said food safety laws and spot checks to investigate whether or not companies comply with the strict safety guidelines "provide for food safety" :doh


JMaximus said:
That's a non-response. In fact, it's a rather juvenile retreat from dealing with the meat of your position - no pun intended.
Click to expand...

The people of the Netherlands decide through democratic means whether or not they want to ban animal welfare practices they disapprove of. People disapprove of prolonged suffering during slaughter and unhygienic slaughtering/butchering and for that reason alone, people/politicians in the Netherlands say that the only meat that can be sold in the Netherlands has to comply with the food and health laws of the Netherlands

JMaximus said:
Neither of which you can provide an even halfway decent account of.

The animal welfare angle is obvious BS for the reasons already given. And you haven't yet offered even one way that the regulations improve food safety.
Click to expand...

It is not BS, you may disapprove of it but then again they are not your laws and not your views. It is what the Dutch people want. It is what the government wants and even the farmers and food producers want it in fact (from the website of the government of the Netherlands website:

Government, livestock farmers and the processing industry want to make animal husbandry as sustainable and animal-friendly as possible.

These are the laws and the views of the Dutch people and they can make rules to limit animal suffering during the food production and the Dutch public wants stringent food safety laws and monitoring to hopefully prevent other health risks to the food production.
 
Peter King said:
Yes, how and why would food safety rules and mandatory checkups, investigations into violations of said food safety laws and spot checks to investigate whether or not companies comply with the strict safety guidelines "provide for food safety" :doh
Click to expand...

I believe in the benefit of the doubt, but you are intentionally refusing to address the issue.

This would make the third time that I'd have asked you to demonstrate how the regulations actually impact food safety... if I were to ask again.

But I won't.

As long as this thread is and as many times as folks have gone around and around I think it's safe to just call it:

With no justifiable rational being offered for these regulations, and given their disproportionate impact on religious minorities, there is no reason to conclude anything other than that these regulations are discriminatory against certain religious minorities - that this is their only effect and their only purpose.​


The people of the Netherlands decide through democratic means whether or not they want to ban animal welfare practices they disapprove of. People disapprove of prolonged suffering during slaughter and unhygienic slaughtering/butchering and for that reason alone, people/politicians in the Netherlands say that the only meat that can be sold in the Netherlands has to comply with the food and health laws of the Netherlands

It is not BS, you may disapprove of it but then again they are not your laws and not your views. It is what the Dutch people want. It is what the government wants and even the farmers and food producers want it in fact (from the website of the government of the Netherlands website:

Government, livestock farmers and the processing industry want to make animal husbandry as sustainable and animal-friendly as possible.

These are the laws and the views of the Dutch people and they can make rules to limit animal suffering during the food production and the Dutch public wants stringent food safety laws and monitoring to hopefully prevent other health risks to the food production.
Click to expand...

No one is questioning the authority of the Dutch to pass these regulations.

What is being questioned is their justification and motives for doing so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom