MacInsiders Logo

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cults of North America Katia Academics 18 01-06-2010 08:17 PM
Guide to Successfully Find Off Campus Housing u.yousaf Residence & Off-Campus Living 7 07-29-2009 02:38 PM
North America = One Nation? lorend Misc 0 01-26-2008 01:13 PM

Congratulations America. You've successfully industrialized life.

 
Old 11-25-2010 at 12:40 AM   #31
Watoko
Elite Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 456

Thanked: 45 Times
Liked: 126 Times




Oh my........
Old 11-25-2010 at 01:29 AM   #32
Marlowe
Elite Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,621

Thanked: 195 Times
Liked: 421 Times




Quote:
Originally Posted by SilentWalker View Post
This lies in one's beliefs as to whether or not other animals serve the purpose of food, and are part of the food chain. Just as animals eat other animals to survive, they in turn will be eaten. And I see absolutely no problem with that.

Death happens, and death by being eaten is natural (meaning it occurs in nature, and will occur regardless of what we will). We are just a part of this process. This topic, however, does not deal with that. It deals with the industrialization of this process; when it is no longer 'natural'.

We could spend whole day arguing whether eating animals is right or not and still be at square one. Besides, that argument on the internet is tantamount to a discussion on religion or sexual orientation.

Fact is, it happens. And it's easier to change the manner in which we kill the animal rather than to totally stop killing animals for food.
Sorry, that wasn't me trying to launch this into a debate on the ethics of whether or not we should eat animals (and you're right that the argument is a tad pointless and cliched over the internet). I was attempting to question the moral distinction between killing animals painlessly or just killing them. I can understand where people are coming from when they argue for eating meat, even if I don't agree with their logic. I can't understand the "I want to kill animals, but I don't want them to suffer- except for the actual death part" line of thinking.

If you choose to look at eating meat as something that is natural because it happens in nature, you have to acknowledge that killings in nature are far more brutal than in a slaughter house. Animals are ripped apart and eaten while they're still alive, it doesn't get much more painful than that.
Old 11-25-2010 at 01:40 AM   #33
REPLEKIA/.
Community Engagement Officer
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,195

Thanked: 105 Times
Liked: 447 Times




Quote:
Originally Posted by Marlowe View Post
If you choose to look at eating meat as something that is natural because it happens in nature, you have to acknowledge that killings in nature are far more brutal than in a slaughter house. Animals are ripped apart and eaten while they're still alive, it doesn't get much more painful than that.
I'm not sure how much I believe that. Given the choice I know tigers will go straight for the jugular vein. Even animals will do their best to make the death of their prey as swift and painless as possible, this helps ensure the predator doesn't get injured in the hunt by the flailing of the injured prey. Should it be so hard for us to do the same?
Old 11-25-2010 at 02:04 AM   #34
SilentWalker
∞/0? Only I know.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 598

Thanked: 35 Times
Liked: 202 Times




Marlowe, I know we're at an understanding of sorts, and I don't want to stretch on the whole 'Should you kill in the first place?' question, but I'll just say this.

Killing for sustinance is different from killing for malice or money. It's not based on the action, but the intention. I know it's not a far reaching statement, but that's probably the best I can explain it for now.

Killing is killing, and the result will always be death. But the manner of acquisition is key. I'm going out on a limb with this analogy, but compare a martyr to someone who dies a traitor in war. Both died in war, but for a different cause. However, in this situation, it's more than just that.

It's a really complicated topic, and it's something I'd love to thoroughly discuss, but this could go on for quite some while and time isn't being too friendly these days.
Old 11-25-2010 at 02:53 AM   #35
Marlowe
Elite Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,621

Thanked: 195 Times
Liked: 421 Times




Fair enough. I think we have different definition of killing for sustenance though- I would only consider it killing for sustenance if you have no other possible way to obtain those nutrients, otherwise its killing for taste. Or convenience.


camais, Needlenose like this.
Old 11-25-2010 at 08:44 AM   #36
Afzal
Android Dev
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,604

Thanked: 114 Times
Liked: 414 Times




So we want to make them feel less pain in order to eat them? Makes perfect sense.
__________________
Afzal Najam - Honours Computer Science grad

mcmastergcdb likes this.
Old 11-25-2010 at 08:55 AM   #37
xxsumz
Radiates Awesomeness
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,598

Thanked: 88 Times
Liked: 333 Times




Quote:
Originally Posted by REPLEKIA/. View Post

EDIT: Interesting to note: While reading an article on the 'Rabbit Sitter' incidents in China (DO NOT GOOGLE THAT IF YOU ARE FAINT OF HEART) I found out that China has absolutely no animal cruelty laws at this moment. Imagine how much chicken they need to produce to feed all of China. It must be far worse than what is depicted here..
Just saw that Rabbit Sitter video, that B*** is F***. Out of anything she could sit on..why rabbits :O
Was an interesting video however
Just disappointed it was rabbits and not someing else.
__________________
o.O
Old 11-25-2010 at 09:49 AM   #38
REPLEKIA/.
Community Engagement Officer
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,195

Thanked: 105 Times
Liked: 447 Times




Quote:
Originally Posted by xxsumz View Post
Just saw that Rabbit Sitter video, that B*** is F***. Out of anything she could sit on..why rabbits :O
Was an interesting video however
Just disappointed it was rabbits and not someing else.
Apparently the rabbit sitting is one of the more tame animal mutilation videos the group responsible produced. They produce all sorts of 'crush erotica' and frankly it's rather sickening to me.
Old 11-25-2010 at 10:31 AM   #39
mcmastergcdb
Elite Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 533

Thanked: 28 Times
Liked: 89 Times




Halal way of killing isn't any better.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...slaughter.html
http://www.thefirstpost.co.u k/5485...ious-slaughter
Scientists have proved that the animals feel the same amount of pain if not more. I see a lot of contradictions going around in the forum. Such as, we are animals and we are bound to kill to eat? We should only kill the animals in humane manners because we are humans, etc. etc.

Yes, human beings are considered animals scientifically. But, we distinct ourselves because we have brain and intellect. Violence and killing are unacceptable in todays society. Therefore, there is not a real method of killing an animal in any humane way!

Meat is needed for sustainability? Humans don't need to eat meat to sustain life, unlike carnivorous animals. What is the reason do you think that homo-sapiens can't digest raw meat? Our ancestors, homo habilis and such could eat raw meat and stuff about 2.5 million years ago, but not us!!
There are enough vegetables, fruits, etc. that provide us with even wider variety of nutritions than meat. Also, it is been proven many times that meat is dangerous for health, especially beef, pork that provides red meat. Our body does not have mechanisms to digest these kind of meats, unlike a tiger or a lion. But, we still eat meat.
However, i don't condemn eating meat. I eat meat myself. I eat because it tastes fukin good not cause I can't get enough protein. Humans are omnivores in a sense that we can cook and eat meat in an emergency. A person in the jungle, can't find $hit to eat will kill an animal and feed him/herself. But, we fit nowhere in the food chain! we are like those mofukas sitting out @ the top that unbalance everything.

In conclusion, this kind of stuff will likely not stop. Everybody knows that these kind of barbaric practices are taking places in these type of companies. But, we ignore them until somebody rub them in our face and show the reality. We will talk and fuss about it for a few days and then go back to our own little busy life.
Human beings are enslaved by their greed and hunger. We know McDonald's sells us crap but we still eat, that's cause we can't get rid of our taste buds and control our self. To supply bazillion people with turkeys for thanksgiving, the companies need a viable method to make profits. They aren't any non-profit charity organizations. Simply, we are the ones that have created these monsters! An animal is going to die and feel pain no matter how much you try to save it from the pain. These companies are going to cut corners to make their wallets fatter. You can't have best of both worlds. Either it would be brutal methods of killing or eat less meat.
By looking at the amount of people are fat i.e. overweight stats, we can say that people are literally living to feed themselves. But we should in contrary, feed to live, so that we can do something better for the society and this world than eating all the time.

Last edited by mcmastergcdb : 11-25-2010 at 10:55 AM.
Old 11-25-2010 at 10:54 AM   #40
SilentWalker
∞/0? Only I know.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 598

Thanked: 35 Times
Liked: 202 Times




Quote:
Originally Posted by mcmastergcdb View Post
Halal way of killing isn't any better.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...slaughter.html
http://www.thefirstpost.co.u k/5485...ious-slaughter
Scientists have proved that the animals feel the same amount of pain if not more. I see a lot of contradictions going around in the forum. Such as, we are animals and we are bound to kill to eat? We should only kill the animals in humane manners because we are humans, etc. etc.
In both reports, scientists said that they drugged the animals so that they couldn't feel pain, but they could pick up pain signals right? Then they went ahead to slaughter the animal according to Islamic or Jewish rulings. And they said that they picked up pain signals. Well obviously they would.

In the same way anesthesia acts, the Dhabiha method of killing prevent the animal from interpreting pain. Nerves in the vicinity of any damaged flesh of tissue will fire off pain signals, and the brain may or may not receive it. However, interpretation of that pain is what's important. Just like anesthesia prevents the animal from interpreting pain, the halal method of killing does the same.

When slaughtered, the circulatory system that is at high pressure to the air causing pressure to equalize and the blood pressure in the brain to fall to zero. As the brain requires a constant flow of blood under pressure for the animal to retain consciousness, anemia of the brain causes loss of awareness and perception (taken from Wikipedia). The brain is basically knocked unconscious, so although it receives the pain signals from the body, it is unable to process these signals, and thus the animal does not feel the pain of slaughter. Isn't this loss of awareness and perception similar to the effect of anesthesia?

And if you had read my earlier post, I mentioned that. The animal loses all 'feeling'. Pain is present, and you can't stop 'pain' (the nervous signal) from being fired unless you kill/deactivate the nerves. However, you can stop that signal from being processed (anesthesia, halal method of killing), or stop the receptors from feeling the processed signal (pain killers). End result is still the same: the animal feels no pain.

That experiment was highly under experimenters bias. They would use a method with certain implications to prove one point in the experiment (anesthesia blocks the sensation of pain; nervous signals can still be detected), but not consider those same implications when slaughtering through the halal method (the animal loses all sensation when slaughtered thorough the halal method, although the brain will still receive some of the pain signals sent from damaged tissue above of the incision).

Pretty ridiculous if you ask me. These people call themselves scientists? Besides, the majority of the article spends time talking about why you should stun rather than the findings themselves. It's all propaganda.

EDIT: Another thing they didn't address. The carotid arteries and jugular veins are the only near skin blood vessels where all blood flows through. In the halal method, these are cut, and due to the pumping of the heart, it leads to rapid blood loss. Rapid blood loss quickly results in loss of sensation and consciousness. This is why they found that all signs of pain disappeared after 2 minutes. Even if a person is dead, the cells inside the body may still be alive. Cells are independent units. In this case, it took 2 minutes for enough blood to drain to starve the receptor nerve cells of enough oxygen so that they died. Of course the heart would have kept beating (it can survive without the human body). It would keep beating until so much blood has drained from the body that it cannot sustain itself and it collapses, starves of oxygen, and dies. All this while, the brain would have been unconscious, unaware and unable to process all this.

Last edited by SilentWalker : 11-25-2010 at 11:38 AM.

BlakeM likes this.
Old 11-25-2010 at 11:45 AM   #41
thedog123123
Crazy Physicist
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 556

Thanked: 61 Times
Liked: 313 Times




Quote:
Pretty ridiculous if you ask me. These people call themselves scientists? Besides, the majority of the article spends time talking about why you should stun rather than the findings themselves. It's all propaganda.


Pretty ridiculous if you think halal is so much better than conventional slaughtering of animals.

Now get off the topic of halal please and go back to the topic at hand.
__________________
Alumni
Old 11-25-2010 at 12:54 PM   #42
KYLB0T
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 175

Thanked: 8 Times
Liked: 130 Times




The planet has too many people. Crazy families like the Duggars on TLC aren't helping much. As long as there are large amounts of people, there will large strains on the planet from us needing food, shelter, warmth, transportation.

Whether it is people liking meat which leads to mass cruelty to animals, or people needing places to live which means mass deforestation, the real problem is there being too many people.
__________________
Kyle
Mech Eng V

Desda likes this.
Old 11-25-2010 at 01:15 PM   #43
Rakim
Account Locked
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,832

Thanked: 87 Times
Liked: 814 Times




Quote:
Originally Posted by KYLB0T View Post
The planet has too many people. Crazy families like the Duggars on TLC aren't helping much. As long as there are large amounts of people, there will large strains on the planet from us needing food, shelter, warmth, transportation.

Whether it is people liking meat which leads to mass cruelty to animals, or people needing places to live which means mass deforestation, the real problem is there being too many people.
Thanks for your opinion, Kyle!

KYLB0T says thanks to Rakim for this post.
Old 11-25-2010 at 01:52 PM   #44
gOOCHTOPHER
Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 77

Thanked: 4 Times
Liked: 11 Times




Quote:
Originally Posted by REPLEKIA/. View Post
I'm not sure how much I believe that. Given the choice I know tigers will go straight for the jugular vein. Even animals will do their best to make the death of their prey as swift and painless as possible, this helps ensure the predator doesn't get injured in the hunt by the flailing of the injured prey. Should it be so hard for us to do the same?
implying tigers care about being humane, and not about making the most efficient kill with the least amount of energy spent, cause everyone knows being humane will increase your fitness in the wild

being humane is purely relative, a different civilization will have a different opinion on it that us
personally i think keeping animals in zoos is inhumane, but you know what? I dont care enough to make a huge fuss over it
the video is disturbing but there is way bigger problems in the world

if u ran that business, its your job and responsibility to the investors of your company to run things as efficiently as possible according to the law, its interesting to see how innovative we can be
__________________
youtube.co m/watch?v=XEfmB9n5uCU
Old 11-25-2010 at 03:52 PM   #45
bloodywarz
Account Disabled by User
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 526

Thanked: 19 Times
Liked: 74 Times




wow thats pretty disturbing... to think that's how they are treated :/ i knew that tons of animals are slaughter weekly just to satisfy our needs but to be done in this sort of manner is pretty horrible. Sadly enough not a lot of people know or care about how what they eat got on their plates. It's sad but there really isn't much we can do to stop it...unless everyone decides to give up on eatting meat that's treated this way. which by the looks of america isn't gonna happen anytime soon



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



McMaster University News and Information, Student-run Community, with topics ranging from Student Life, Advice, News, Events, and General Help.
Notice: The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the student(s) who authored the content. The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by McMaster University or the MSU (McMaster Students Union). Being a student-run community, all articles and discussion posts on MacInsiders are unofficial and it is therefore always recommended that you visit the official McMaster website for the most accurate up-to-date information.

Copyright © MacInsiders.com All Rights Reserved. No content can be re-used or re-published without permission. MacInsiders is a service of Fullerton Media Inc. | Created by Chad
Originally Powered by vBulletin®, Copyright © 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba vBulletin. All rights reserved. | Privacy | Terms