Neighbours angry about slaughter

[Nerfherder]

For people to sit there and think "The meat I eat comes from an abattoir that kills humanely and we don't kill things for ceremony" and then assume that it makes their culture better is narrow minded in the extreme.

Yes but I don't have to hear it being killed or have its blood and guts run down my street.

There is a lot more to this than cultural sensitivity

 

[Nod]

Perhaps it isn't. However for proponents of 'Western culture' to get on a high horse is ludicrous.

It sounds like people actually think that African culture is more barbaric and animal-unfriendly than a Western culture.

You only have to look at how African cultures interact with the environment and animals and then compare that to the west to realise how silly this perception is.

How many major ecological disasters have African cultures been responsible for? How many cruel, mass-farming practices? How many animals wastefully killed (think of how an African culture uses every bit of a slaughtered animal compared to some of the frivolous reasons that we take life).

For people to sit there and think "The meat I eat comes from an abattoir that kills humanely and we don't kill things for ceremony" and then assume that it makes their culture better is narrow minded in the extreme.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Deforestation_in_Ethiopia
http://environment.about.com/od/biodiversityconservation/a/african_wildlif.htm
http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-africa-forest-wildlife-eaten-into-extinction

 

[Tpex]

its their culture folks, it wont be changing in a while so move along and get some KFC...

 

[mo_mia]

What the various pieces of the animal are used for after it is dead is totally irrelevant. Why should it care? It is already dead. However if you need to kill an animal do it in a way that causes the least amount of pain and trauma.


Of course not. However to say "The meat I eat comes from an abattoir that kills humanely and I don't support killing things in a cruel manner" is NOT narrow minded and it is neither racism nor is it afro-pessimism (ROFLMAO). I don't have a problem with the dude's culture. I have a problem with needless cruelty. You want to hide behind "this is a belief and we need to respect it" on this topic then you need to support stonings under Sahkira law in order to avoid being a hypocrite. Cruelty for the sake of belief is not civilised. Again, not racism, not afro-pessimism just a recognition that no living creature deserves to suffer needlessly.

I hear ya. I'm just pointing out that there is a lot of perspective missing when people somehow assume their own culture does less cruel and inhumane things.

You should know that I have issue with most things done in the name of belief, so I'm not saying you have to respect it.

I'm just saying (not directed at you) that people should think about their own culture's behaviour and the casualties involved before proclaiming them as superior or less barbaric.

 

[porchrat]

I hear ya. I'm just pointing out that there is a lot of perspective missing when people somehow assume their own culture does less cruel and inhumane things.

You should know that I have issue with most things done in the name of belief, so I'm not saying you have to respect it.

I'm just saying (not directed at you) that people should think about their own culture's behaviour and the casualties involved before proclaiming them as superior or less barbaric.

You would have to have some pretty serious evidence to convince me that the "Western" way of slaughtering animals is not more civilised than the ritualistic sacrifice mentioned in the OP.

 

[mo_mia]

You would have to have some pretty serious evidence to convince me that the "Western" way of slaughtering animals is not more civilised than the ritualistic sacrifice mentioned in the OP.

I wouldn't try to. I'm failing dismally at getting my point across.

What I am saying is that if being civilized to animals is the concern, then western cultures have a lot more to answer for than African ones.

Don't focus on the slaughter for meat bit. I put that in there as an example of how far peope are taking their line of thinking. ie: The meat I eat comes from civilised slaughter practices, so I have a right to consider myself superior.

It ignores all the other products of Western society and culture which have not exactly been friendly to the environment or animals.

 

[Nerfherder]

What about my culture of keeping slaves ?

 

[porchrat]

It ignores all the other products of Western society and culture which have not exactly been friendly to the environment or animals.

You're referring to practices of the past. Those have been abandoned by the majority of Western society. Nowadays people are concerned about how their meat is prepared. Concerned with th suffering of animals. A willingness to abandon historical practices that are seen as cruel just further demonstrates 'civilisedness'.

I'm still failing to see what you're saying. Perhaps if you offered an example.

 

[dlk001]

You would have to have some pretty serious evidence to convince me that the "Western" way of slaughtering animals is not more civilised than the ritualistic sacrifice mentioned in the OP.

The problem here is trying to compare slaughtering of a cattle for spiritual needs (e.g. this tradition) versus slaughtering for material needs (e.g. for consumption). A person who does not believe in the spiritual meaning of this culture will have a one-sided view of what it means to be civilized.

 

[Nod]

The problem here is trying to compare slaughtering of a cattle for spiritual needs (e.g. this tradition) versus slaughtering for material needs (e.g. for consumption). A person who does not believe in the spiritual meaning of this culture will have a one-sided view of what it means to be civilized.

True. Does the slaughter have to occur at home, or could any venue be used?
If it doesn't have to happen at home, why not start a cultural centre, where these things could be done?

 

[porchrat]

The problem here is trying to compare slaughtering of a cattle for spiritual needs (e.g. this tradition) versus slaughtering for material needs (e.g. for consumption). A person who does not believe in the spiritual meaning of this culture will have a one-sided view of what it means to be civilized.

I'm not talking about why it is killed I'm talking about animal cruelty. I can't support needless cruelty regardless of the circumstances.

While I understand what you're saying the spirituality of the West adapted. In the beginning what are today Westerners used to sacrifice animals too. For the most part those practices have been abandoned.

 

[mo_mia]

You're referring to practices of the past. Those have been abandoned by the majority of Western society. Nowadays people are concerned about how their meat is prepared. Concerned with th suffering of animals. A willingness to abandon historical practices that are seen as cruel just further demonstrates 'civilisedness'.

I'm still failing to see what you're saying. Perhaps if you offered an example.

No, not cruel practices of the past. Perhaps try and look at it this way:

While certain African cultures have ritual sacrafices, and 'Western' cultures do not, which of the two do you think causes more sufferring and distress to animals today. Not limited to slaughter, but as products of the culture. Which does more senseless harm?

 

[dlk001]

True. Does the slaughter have to occur at home, or could any venue be used?
If it doesn't have to happen at home, why not start a cultural centre, where these things could be done?

It depends on the meaning and context of that particular ceremony. E.g. If its death related or a ritual of appeasement, it must happen at home.

 

[porchrat]

No, not cruel practices of the past. Perhaps try and look at it this way:

While certain African cultures have ritual sacrafices, and 'Western' cultures do not, which of the two do you think causes more sufferring and distress to animals today. Not limited to slaughter, but as products of the culture. Which does more senseless harm?

Within the realm of ritual sacrifice the African culture.

Like I said, offer examples or your position will remain nebulous.

Each individual animal matters. If you're trying to refer to the sheer number of animals hurt by Western culture that is not an accurate comparison. What matters is how each animal is treated not how many are treated in this way. Western culture is more automated and honestly... less starving.

 

[BCO]

Porchrat, ANY eating of meat requires needless cruelty.

Modern factory farming involves plenty of pain and suffering for animals, not only in the way they're killed but also in the way they are raised.

It's definitely quite hypocritical to condemn ritual slaughter and then go home and chow a steak you bought from Pick n Pay


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4

 

[Stokstert]

A big uproar about one cow being killed and slaughtered, while there is a big silence when 16 000 humans get killed and slaughtered per year. Does that also count as culture?

 

[mo_mia]

Within the realm of ritual sacrifice the African culture.

Like I said, offer examples or your position will remain nebulous.

And outside of that realm?

Remember, it's not your comments that I have issue with. Saying ritual sacrifice is wrong and pointless is fine.

Saying that the culture that does it is more barbaric because they do it is a statement that lacks perspective.

I don't want to offer examples because then the debate will get specific to the example.

It should be enough to look at senseless and cruel effects on wildlife across all practices and products of each culture.

 

[dlk001]

I'm not talking about why it is killed I'm talking about animal cruelty. I can't support needless cruelty regardless of the circumstances.

While I understand what you're saying the spirituality of the West adapted. In the beginning what are today Westerners used to sacrifice animals too. For the most part those practices have been abandoned.

Ok I understand your moral point of view. So, if you don't support needless cruelty, then I assume you are against slaughtering of animals regardless of the circumstances? I'm sure if the animal had rights, it would not consider any slaughtering to be civilized.

 

[BCO]

Ok I understand your moral point of view. So, if you don't support needless cruelty, then I assume you are against slaughtering of animals regardless of the circumstances? I'm sure if the animal had rights, it would not consider any slaughtering to be civilized.

Exactly.

 

[porchrat]

Ok I understand your moral point of view. So, if you don't support needless cruelty, then I assume you are against slaughtering of animals regardless of the circumstances? I'm sure if the animal had rights, it would not consider any slaughtering to be civilized.

No I'm not against slaughtering an animal regardless of the circumstances. I also didn't say I'm against cruelty. I said I'm against needless cruelty.

I'm saying if you have to kill something try to do it in a manner that causes the least amount of pain taking into account why you're killing it in the first place.

For example if you're going to do research into a virus or something it is safe to assume the animal purposely infected is going to suffer. I also understand why it needs to suffer. However don't draw it out any longer than you need to.