@i_like_swords: so firstly I didn't mean to offend but the vine is filled with strange "meat vs no meat" threads this week. (Should we put that in battles? Haha)
Yes I'm refering to the red writing as you can see mine is blue as my "allignment" is hero. I understand you like the red, but know that this does reflect your profile and other viners take it as you being a villian. Just a thought.
To elaborate on what you asked about it being humane can raise sooo many more questions. I understand now that you basically only mean slaughterhouses, and I apologise for bringing up the bears then, but then again if someone else read mine and gained something from it I would be glad. So can it be humane, well the question arises does it need to be humane? Obviously I am not for ISIS tactics on animals, but the fact stands that we don't know what happens to animals after they die (making this a religious answer). We don't know if an animal can feel pain when they die a fast death and if this is even relevant because they are dead now so what concerns to we need to have about how they feel after being killed (making this the unreligious answer). Animals that are hurt are much worse to me than animals that are killed because at least the pain stops at death, but mistreated animals have constant pain.
"Animals being killed or murdered stil results in their death" well sure it does, but being murdered does infact also include a measure of torture. Now I'm not an expert on slaughterhouse techniques but I do know that they chop off the heads of a chicken and that takes less than a second. In other words it is dead faster than the opium receptoids can process the pain so it dies a painless death. For cattle I know it is an electric spike in the head, this is done because it is the fastest way to kill the cow and the electricity influences it to temporarily not feel pain. (Then of course fish has it's own way, lobster which I will never eat because that is what I believe to be the cruelest, but you get the idea)
I believe that the very words "humane slaughter" is a paradox. But I also believe that we kept the word slaughter from the years when it was done with hammers instead of electric spikes. It was a slaughter and something awful. Today I would be more comfortable with the words "humane death" to the animals. As they die, but don't undergo slaughter anymore.
Is it logical to call killing humane? Well let's use Spock logic... Did the animal suffer? No (at least not in modern slaughterhouses). Did the animals anticipate their death? Well no, they couldn't have foreseen death from circumstances that were identical to how they are caged to eat. Will the animal be mad after you killed it? It can't be.
So I would conclude that in the olden times it most certainly could NOT have been used. but with the methods we have today I don't see it as a paradox at all.
The meat you buy from the supermarket.. well you can only hope that they used the methods I mentioned. If you are going to the cafe down the street to buy some low budget meat chances are it wasn't humane, but if you go to walmart then the chances are great that they used the methods listed and the animals were most definitely not aware of their death or pain caused by it at all.
Sorry if my previous post offended you. It was not my intention
Log in to comment