|
|
|
|
|
by qt7
4102 days ago
|
|
The only civil reply to my comment above. We may not share the same opinion, but I appreciate your considerate response. My post above probably came out too harsh, that was unintended. > I don't think that the ritual slaughter of islam and conventional slaughter are different enough for the line between barbaric and non-barbaric to coincidentally somehow end up right between them. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/outcry-after-... > As for slaughtering an animal that you've enjoyed the company of, I'm not sure how it is any worse than slaughtering an animal you didn't enjoy the company of. If you actually believe that which you're saying, you'd have no problem slaughtering your dog. |
|
I'm really not trying to make a true scotsman argument here, but unnecessarily brutal treatment of animals is prevalent through the whole meat industry and sadly can't be pinned down to a particular religious practice or tradition.
I personally believe that this is an inherent problem of the industry. I think that repetitively performing these jobs hundreds of times a day requires that you have absolutely no emotional investment in the animals. Add to that otherwise stressful conditions, and you have to take care not to develop sadistic tendencies and loathing of the animals.
> If you actually believe that which you're saying, you'd have no problem slaughtering your dog.
I'd have a problem slaughtering my dog, but that's besides the point. I just don't believe that it would somehow be less humane than slaughtering some other animal. In fact, if I were to slaughter my dog, I'd probably take extra care to do it in the most humane way possible.