BS: Standard meat Indian restaurants?

Subject: RE: BS: Standard meat Indian restaurants?
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 01 Aug 17 - 10:20 AM

In the UK, most of the major supermarkets sell ONLY halal meat ...

I must see if I can pick up some halal pork chops next time I am in Tesco.

:-)
DC

Subject: RE: BS: Standard meat Indian restaurants?
From: Jeri
Date: 01 Aug 17 - 10:33 AM

Wondering how people on small farms who slaughter and butcher their own animals do it. From my very small experience, they cut the throats of pigs, and probably send the cows elsewhere. Do they have a small version of a captive bolt stunner for chickens, or do they just behead them? I don't know. Maybe there are little stun guns out there for chickens. And what about fish? That particular scene is the most horrific. They yank them out of the water by a hook through their mouths, and often filet them before they're actually dead.

I think arguing about polite ways of ending life is silly. Dead is dead is dead, and people who're overly concerned about it should probably just be vegetarian. Then they would have something new to argue about, although it would be more difficult to work the "this religion is better than that religion" theme into it.

Subject: RE: BS: Standard meat Indian restaurants?
From: Stu
Date: 01 Aug 17 - 10:39 AM

You can buy Bombay Duck again now. Luverly!

Subject: RE: BS: Standard meat Indian restaurants?
From: Senoufou
Date: 01 Aug 17 - 10:40 AM

Haha Doug! I sometimes fry bacon, and my poor husband drools and always says how delicious it smells.
Luckily, we're each very tolerant of the other's ways.

I suppose historically, pork was rather a dodgy choice, since pigs roam freely and eat any old muck in developing countries and can carry tapeworms (but beef does too). Also, eating 'carrion' would be a mad thing to do. And avoiding blood or blood products is also sensible in the Tropics. (I adore black pudding myself)

In Tunisia and Morocco, I often saw the head and feet/hooves displayed outside a butcher's shop, showing what animal had just been slaughtered and prepared. A bit grisly, but nice to be sure what one is going to eat!

Subject: RE: BS: Standard meat Indian restaurants?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Aug 17 - 10:45 AM

So gnome you feel you know better than the FVE. Can you state your qualifications for such a statement or are you simply blowing smoke as usual?

No, I don't know any better than anyone. I can only go off what has been reported and it is reported that some stunning causes as much if not more pain that slaughter without stunning. See this article in the New Humanist for a good explanation of what I say.

If you just want an argument, as usual, feel free to carry on but you are barking up the wrong tree here.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Standard meat Indian restaurants?
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 01 Aug 17 - 11:54 AM

Iains - you should count yourself lucky that an injudicious mod intervention
has removed evidence of your earlier posted attempt at starting a row in this thread...

I'd have preferred it was still here for all to see what you do..

Subject: RE: BS: Standard meat Indian restaurants?
From: Jeri
Date: 01 Aug 17 - 12:01 PM

Cooking kills worms. The only thing it won't kill (AFAIK) is prion disease. Rabies, apparently, is also possibly killed by cooking (or maybe it's something else involved in consumption).

When I was a vet tech in the Air Force, someone told me they'd been working in an AF vet clinic in the Philippines. Someone brought in a dead dog they were sure had had rabies. The vet and the techs went in another room, and when they went back to the dog, it was gone. Well... it WAS meat. Given that there was a lot of rabies in dogs, and people ate dogs, and nobody had ever developed rabies from eating a dog, I came to the conclusion that cooking kills the rabies rhabdovirus. I didn't really look into it, though, as I wasn't planning on eating any rabid rover roasts anytime soon.

Subject: RE: BS: Standard meat Indian restaurants?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Aug 17 - 12:23 PM

"I think arguing about polite ways of ending life is silly. Dead is dead is dead, and people who're overly concerned about it should probably just be vegetarian. Then they would have something new to argue about..."

Allelujah. So, so far we've worked out that some halal meat was stunned and some wasn't. And some non-halal meat was stunned and some wasn't. So I ask again: what IS the point of this thread?

I nearly said where's the beef...

Subject: RE: BS: Standard meat Indian restaurants?
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 01 Aug 17 - 12:40 PM

Mad cow disease put beef off our plates for years...

After the official all clear, we all have to trust beef is now safe...???

Beef Burger Russian Roulette.... 🍔 ⚠

Subject: RE: BS: Standard meat Indian restaurants?
From: EBarnacle
Date: 01 Aug 17 - 01:00 PM

I was talking with a kosher oriented friend the other day. His car had taken damage from a meeting with a deer. Since I know he always carries a sharp knife, I asked him why he did not a] put the deer our of its misery and b] take the venison home for later consumption. He advised me that the literal definition of "tref" is not only unclean but torn or damaged. As such, the meat was unfit for consumption.

Subject: RE: BS: Standard meat Indian restaurants?
From: Iains
Date: 01 Aug 17 - 01:09 PM

dthe g. Your article by Harold Hillman 2010)seems to have very little in the way of sources or peer review. This makes the conclusions of one individual very suspect.

The New Scientist:"Neurophysiologist Harold Hillman has a serious career problem. He's out of step with his peers, and now he's out of a job as well."(1988)

The fact that most western legislation mandates pre-stunning prior to slaughter does rather lead to the assumption that this pre-stunning serves a useful purpose. i.e. it reduces suffering. I think it is fair to say that this legislation in each country was drafted with veterinary input and so far the case for stunning animals being more humane is overwhelming. Even most halal meat is pre-stunned prior to slaughter(around 80%, depending on sources) The only exemptions granted are on religious grounds
    A review of news items on abbatoirs would suggest that more needs to be done to police behaviour of slaughtermen to prevent cruelty to annimals while being processed. CCTV was supposed to be placed in all slaughterhouses. I donot believe this has yet happened.

Subject: RE: BS: Standard meat Indian restaurants?
From: Senoufou
Date: 01 Aug 17 - 01:22 PM

EBarnacle, my husband still thinks it's a terrible waste not to stop the car and shove roadkill into the boot. He sees a dead muntjac/badger/fox/squirrel/pigeon on the grass verge and wonders why no-one takes it home to 'put in the pot'. Where he comes from there'd be a fight over who should get it, halal or not (definitely NOT) W Africans get so little meat, anything is welcome.

Steve, stop harping on. If you see no point to this thread then why are you lurking here grinding your teeth and muttering to yourself? And do you remember Mr & Mrs Smack? They've just bought tickets to Bottyland. Their bus is on its way...

Subject: RE: BS: Standard meat Indian restaurants?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Aug 17 - 01:26 PM

This makes the conclusions of one individual very suspect.

Which is why I have not come to any conclusion. The phrase I think I used was 'The jury still seems to be out on whether stunning is better or not.' I have seen the article from the FVE and the one I linked. There are many more from both sides and I am sure you are as unqualified as I am to pronounce which are more correct. The point is that both stunning and Halal/Kosher slaughter can cause pain and distress to the victims. There is no point in playing the holier than thou card when you eat meat slaughtered by any method.

Your tone indicates, as PFR says, that you are only here for the argument and are not really interested in what anyone else has to say. I am more than happy to accept that the FVE know what they are talking about but I also accept that others, including slaughtermen who have been involved in the trade for many years, may have an opposing views that could also be correct. Will you accept that too?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Standard meat Indian restaurants?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 01 Aug 17 - 01:30 PM

I've never personally witnessed the slaughter of an animal (except pheasants, partridges, pigeons, rabbits and hares, by shooting), but I lived, for many years, about 100 yards from a traditional abattoir, and I've seen video of a sheep subjected to Halal slaughter.

In the case of the abattoir, the cries of the animals were heard all day long, and they were clearly cries of terror, not the usual sounds you hear from cows, sheep,and pigs. The terrified cries stopped abruptly - presumably when the animal was stunned.

The video of the Halal slaughter was very different, the animal did not appear unduly stressed, the slaughter men were very gentle and spoke softly to the animal before and after its throat was cut. It appeared not to know what had happened to it, it didn't cry out or struggle, and it was held and gently lowered to the ground as it lost consciousness. 'Respectful' and 'kind' are the two words that sprang to mind as I watched the video. Not claiming that all Halal slaughter is performed in such a gentle, humane way - I don't have that much experience.

No judgment intended here, just my experience (such as it is).

Subject: RE: BS: Standard meat Indian restaurants?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 01 Aug 17 - 01:32 PM

Meant to say also that, in the case of the Halal slaughter, the knife was at all times hidden from the animal's sight, so it didn't take fright.

Subject: RE: BS: Standard meat Indian restaurants?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Aug 17 - 01:33 PM

But you're not really giving sources yourself. Your argument appears to be based on appeal to authority, a well-known logical fallacy. Vets favour stunning therefore it must be more humane. Legislation in so many countries must mean that stunning is more humane. Sorry, but neither is evidence, nor do they represent sources. The arguments I've read that suggest that stunning may lead to just as much distress as not stunning, along with the descriptions of physiological reactions apropos of sensory and motor nervous systems, seem quite persuasive and are not so easily dismissed. So let's have your peer-reviewed studies. This is what you said (and I've stripped out the routine insult): "I think a vet is better qualified to state an opinion on this subject, especially when backed by scientific studies." Good. So let's be having those studies then, chapter and verse.

Subject: RE: BS: Standard meat Indian restaurants?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Aug 17 - 01:37 PM

That was directed at Iains. This is directed at Senoufou: you contribute what you want to and I'll contribute what I want to. In fact, I've contributed a fair bit to this thread after doing my homework. Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Standard meat Indian restaurants?
From: Iains
Date: 01 Aug 17 - 01:40 PM

d the G.
I think the fact that only a small minority of meat is slaughtered without pre stunning makes its own case. In reality no method can be totally stress free and painless. It is a question of degree. Needless cruelty in slaughterhouses is probably far more of a problem.


https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/28/fsa-4000-breaches-animal-welfare-laws-uk-abattoirs-two-years

Subject: RE: BS: Standard meat Indian restaurants?
From: Iains
Date: 01 Aug 17 - 01:43 PM

Shaw you can use google as well as I can. Do your own homework!

Subject: RE: BS: Standard meat Indian restaurants?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Aug 17 - 01:44 PM

What case?

Subject: RE: BS: Standard meat Indian restaurants?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Aug 17 - 01:49 PM

You are making claims that, so far, you haven't substantiated. So what scientific studies are referring to?

Subject: RE: BS: Standard meat Indian restaurants?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Aug 17 - 01:50 PM

you

Subject: RE: BS: Standard meat Indian restaurants?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Aug 17 - 01:55 PM

I think the fact that only a small minority of meat is slaughtered without pre stunning makes its own case.

No it doesn't. The fact that things are done that way does not make any case at all. In scientific studies the norm should always be questioned. Without this simple act we would never make any progress. All I am saying is that all types of slaughter can and do cause animals distress. I am just not convinced that shooting a bolt into and animals brain or electrocuting it prior to slitting its throat is any better than just slitting its throat. As I said, as far as I am concerned, the jury is still out.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Standard meat Indian restaurants?
From: Iains
Date: 01 Aug 17 - 02:00 PM

As I said earlier:
1June 2017" The RSPCA, British Veterinary Association, the Farm Animal Welfare Council and animal rights groups say slaughter without pre-stunning can cause unnecessary suffering." That is good enough for me. If the professional organisation for vets does not support slaughter without stunning then who has equivalent professional standing to argue to the contrary?

I think it is quite safe to assume the necessary studies have been carried out to support this position.

Subject: RE: BS: Standard meat Indian restaurants?
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 01 Aug 17 - 02:06 PM

Just for a laugh I was going to link to "Meat is Murder" by the Smiths..

But after struggling though the lengthy boring intro and the first few bars of Morrisey's whiny singing,
decided it would be far too cruel to humans... 😜

Subject: RE: BS: Standard meat Indian restaurants?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Aug 17 - 02:15 PM

I think it is quite safe to assume the necessary studies have been carried out to support this position.

What position? "slaughter without pre-stunning can cause unnecessary suffering"? That is probably right. Does it say anywhere that slaughter with pre-stunning does not cause unnecessary suffering? My position remains that all slaughter can cause unnecessary suffering. Do the "necessary studies that support this position" say anywhere that pre-stunning is a foolproof way to eliminate all suffering? I think not.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Standard meat Indian restaurants?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Aug 17 - 02:21 PM

I would have enjoyed the Smiths, PFR, but maybe this Monty Python sketch is more suitable.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Standard meat Indian restaurants?
From: Iains
Date: 01 Aug 17 - 02:22 PM

D the g do you actually read what is posted?

"slaughter without pre-stunning can cause unnecessary suffering."

Nowhere does anyone state the procedure is painless.

Subject: RE: BS: Standard meat Indian restaurants?
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 01 Aug 17 - 02:31 PM

I try my best not to be a hypocrite, or be completely indifferent to animal suffering... but I am a meat eater.

This is no excuse or justification, but every day all around the world sentient creatures are captured and devoured, ripped apart whilst still conscious, by predators higher up the food chain.
With absolutely no consideration for the terror or pain of their food animals..

Your cute cuddly fluffy pet cats routinely playfully torture and kill smaller animals they have no need of for food and survival.

We are just another predator, but hopefully with more compassion for the animals we eat.

How much can we trust the global corporate food industry to be minimising animal suffering on our behalf...????

Subject: RE: BS: Standard meat Indian restaurants?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Aug 17 - 02:32 PM

I read was was posted and repeated it thank you. Did you read my follow up question to it? If you accept that the procedure is not painless, as you seem to indicate, you are simply replacing one sort of pain for another. In either case it can cause the animal suffering and in either case we chose to ignore that fact when we cook our Sunday roast. Neither standard meat nor Halal/Kosher meat is free from pain.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Standard meat Indian restaurants?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Aug 17 - 02:35 PM

"As I said earlier:
1June 2017" The RSPCA, British Veterinary Association, the Farm Animal Welfare Council and animal rights groups say slaughter without pre-stunning can cause unnecessary suffering." That is good enough for me. If the professional organisation for vets does not support slaughter without stunning then who has equivalent professional standing to argue to the contrary?

I think it is quite safe to assume the necessary studies have been carried out to support this position."

Spot the logical fallacy, not to speak of the weasel words. 😂😂😂

If you want to make serious points you should be prepared to give us those "necessary studies" chapter and verse. The fact that you clearly can't can't makes you....Keith....

Subject: RE: BS: Standard meat Indian restaurants?
From: Iains
Date: 01 Aug 17 - 02:38 PM

well we finally agree on something.

Subject: RE: BS: Standard meat Indian restaurants?
From: Iains
Date: 01 Aug 17 - 06:12 PM

Shaw you are rather fond of chapter and verse are you not. So here are a few chapters and verses for you to gnaw on. Don't leave out the bibliographys.
"A number of notable bodies including the Farm Animal Welfare Committee and the EU Food Safety Authority all agree that there is a high probability that the cutting of sensitive tissues at the neck will trigger a significant pain response in a conscious animal."

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17972-animals-feel-the-pain-of-religious-slaughter/

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/more-animals-die-in-pain-because-scholars-are-ignorant-of-stunning-fsz83krtn
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00480169.2014.964345
http://www.fve.org/news/position_papers/animal_welfare/fve_02_104_slaughter_prior_stunning.pdf
https://www.ciwf.org.uk/media/3818629/religious-slaughter-briefing.pdf (plus extensive bibliography)
http://animalstudiesrepository.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=acwp_faafp
https://www.bva.co.uk/uploadedFiles/Content/News,_campaigns_and_policies/Campaigns/welfare-at-slaughter-june-2015-final3.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: Standard meat Indian restaurants?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Aug 17 - 06:21 PM

A number of notable bodies including the Farm Animal Welfare Committee and the EU Food Safety Authority all agree that there is a high probability that the cutting of sensitive tissues at the neck will trigger a significant pain response in a conscious animal

Of course it will. No one is disputing that. What you keep ignoring is the fact that a bolt in the head or a severe electric shock will also trigger a significant pain response. If you doubt that, I suggest you try it out yourself.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Standard meat Indian restaurants?
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Aug 17 - 06:26 PM

My niece says she won't eat anything with a face

Subject: RE: BS: Standard meat Indian restaurants?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Aug 17 - 06:38 PM

"A number of notable bodies..." Yeah, well, you never learn, do you. 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Standard meat Indian restaurants?
From: Iains
Date: 02 Aug 17 - 03:52 AM

well shaw and gnome lets have some of your counter arguments with the scientific evidence to support it. Chapter and verse if you don't mind. Interesting how you twist the argument.
   Now I wonder how far I would have to dig in the 30000 +posts you have jointly generated to find identical behaviour.
And I believe I have clearly stated that the legislation is to prevent unnecessary suffering. Even a trip   to a dentist involves suffering.
D the g do you actually read what is posted?

"slaughter without pre-stunning can cause unnecessary suffering."

Nowhere does anyone state the procedure is painless.
Now what part of the above can you not understand?
Shaw for what you regard as a pointless thread one can legitimately ask. Why are you here? To Provoke? How unusual.
I am surprised you have managed to plough through all the references
appended to the articles I supplied but judging by the tone of your response you probably have not bothered after demanding they be supplied. Rather demonstrates the nature of the man eh shaw?
m

Subject: RE: BS: Standard meat Indian restaurants?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Aug 17 - 05:10 AM

Yes, I have read it and repeated it. I will do so again as you obviously missed it.

slaughter without pre-stunning can cause unnecessary suffering

You have still not responded to my follow up question.

Can stunning an animal cause unnesessary suffering? I am pretty sure that having a steel spike driven into the brain or being electrocuted is no picnic. Is there any of that that you do not understand?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Standard meat Indian restaurants?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 02 Aug 17 - 05:32 AM

I think the fact that only a small minority of meat is slaughtered without pre stunning makes its own case.

It shows it's much easier to cut an animal's throat while it's paralyzed with fear after being put through an extreme epileptic seizure. It's got nothing to do with reducing the animal's suffering.

Put yourself in the animal's position and imagine that as in the state of Utah, someone is giving you a choice of how to be executed. You can either have all the blood vessels to your brain severed instantly (which will cause unconsciousness within seconds) or you can be given a blast of ECT (without premedication) first. Which would you go for?

More significantly, there is absolutely no question that American methods of intensive stock rearing cause lifelong suffering to all the animals subjected to it (read Jeffrey Masson's books for some horrible examples). Why let Christian America off when it's causing immeasurably more misery to vastly more animals, and for their entire lives?

Subject: RE: BS: Standard meat Indian restaurants?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Aug 17 - 05:53 AM

That is what I have been trying to get across, Jack. No method of slaughtering is entirely free from suffering. By its very nature it can't be. No one can be holier than thou when it comes to eating meat, myself included.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Standard meat Indian restaurants?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Aug 17 - 11:23 AM

That's the whole point. A massive song and dance is being made in this thread over whether the last few seconds of animals' lives matter more than the previous rest of their lives, which in all probability were spent in miserable, unnatural conditions, which we're not even talking about much. But, of course, if it's what Muslims do...

And sorry, Iains, but as you're the claimant it's up to you to produce the evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Standard meat Indian restaurants?
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 02 Aug 17 - 01:04 PM

So.. does any predator in nature cause less suffering to it's prey than the most humane and skilled quick kill butcher [irrespective of religion]...???

Most lives end in suffering and pain one way or another..
Would I really care, would it make any difference, if I was eaten afterwards...???

Of course being eaten alive, nature toot hand claw, is an entirely different proposition on the painometer .....

Subject: RE: BS: Standard meat Indian restaurants?
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 02 Aug 17 - 01:07 PM

toot hand claw...!!!???

that's sending my imagination off on one...
[I used to work in an artificial limb appliance clinic...]

Subject: RE: BS: Standard meat Indian restaurants?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 02 Aug 17 - 01:39 PM

Well there is this... Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers Thanksgiving dinner, it's probably elsewhere on the web but this one is on Facebook..

https://www.facebook.com/TheFabulousFurryFreakBrothers/photos/a.233240485386.294467.62255865386/10154882374565387/

Subject: RE: BS: Standard meat Indian restaurants?
From: Iains
Date: 02 Aug 17 - 04:11 PM

shaw"A massive song and dance is being made in this thread over whether the last few seconds of animals' lives matter more than the previous rest of their lives, which in all probability were spent in miserable, unnatural conditions, which we're not even talking about much. But, of course, if it's what Muslims do..."

No shaw the thread was about halal meat. I believe you went out and bought yourself a soapbox to stand up on and pontificate about totally separate issue of annimal welfare, transportation, and conditions in abbatoirs. All this on a thread that by your own admission is pointless. These issues you raise are valid, besides being cruel they impact the bottom line. Raise annimals in poor conditions and you are shovelling food with restricted weightgain. Cruelty during transportation and slaughter can create carcass bruising and impacts on the value of the annimal. Better policing of animal welfare is required with more cctv. I would also like to see far more inspection of the comprehensive controls on medication and elapsed time prior to slaughter. I suspect this can be open to abuse.
However the main stumbling block for both you and the gnome is the efficacy of prestunning. You are both obdurate and obtuse. SO I will illustrate the argument with a simple analogy that both of you should be capable of understanding.
If you go to the dentist for a root canal(SLAUGHTER) would you like it performed without anaesthetic(PRESTUNNING)
There. Made it easy for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Standard meat Indian restaurants?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Aug 17 - 04:58 PM

Actually, though it's totally irrelevant, I have ALL my dentistry done sans anaesthetic, at my insistence. 😂

You are an obsessive Iains, and your arguments are shaky and unsupported. And "animals" has only one n. Are you sure this isn't about your dislike of Islam?   Not sayin', just wonderin'...

Subject: RE: BS: Standard meat Indian restaurants?
From: Senoufou
Date: 02 Aug 17 - 05:13 PM

Iains's arguments are far from 'shaky and unsupported'. He has provided numerous links to reputable and relevant bodies who should know what they're talking about.
Typos happen. Iains writes intelligently and in an educated way. I'm sure he knows how to spell animals, and I'm sure you know he does. It's a bit pathetic to use a typo with which to insult a poster.

And why are you so determined to accuse some of us of anti-Muslim attitudes? I can hardly be included in that category. I've been married to a black Muslim for decades, and all my (many!) in-laws are devout Muslims too. Some of their practices and doctrines do not meet with my approval, but I love them all dearly nonetheless.

When discussing halal meat, and the opportunity to avoid it in restaurants, one is naturally going to consider its consumption by Muslims.

Subject: RE: BS: Standard meat Indian restaurants?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Aug 17 - 05:49 PM

I'm not determined to accuse anyone of anything. I'm simply asking certain people here, yourself not included, to examine their consciences. And if you think that Iain's arguments on this forum are intelligent and well-educated, well either you don't read his posts or you're his doting auntie.

Subject: RE: BS: Standard meat Indian restaurants?
From: Senoufou
Date: 02 Aug 17 - 06:04 PM

I do indeed read his posts Steve. For instance, on the Charlie Gard thread, Iains provided a most interesting reference to another case of unnecessary resuscitation involving a policeman; a case which gave another perspective on the discussion.

I am certainly not his doting auntie.

I'm not your doting auntie either. If I were, I might be able to react with more patience to your posts, which seem lately to be getting increasingly confrontational, personally insulting and stroppy.

Subject: RE: BS: Standard meat Indian restaurants?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Aug 17 - 06:37 PM

So, Eliza, you accuse Steve of being "increasingly confrontational, personally insulting and stroppy" yet have said nothing of the following unprovoked attacks?

Shaw the simple reason that I would like to have the meat labelled as halal is that 20% of halal meat is slaughtered without prior stunning.
Perhaps if you read the links you also could be aware of this salient point.
I assume you are either a vegan or complete hypocrite.
...

So gnome you feel you know better than the FVE. Can you state your qualifications for such a statement or are you simply blowing smoke as usual?
...

Shaw you can use google as well as I can. Do your own homework!
...

D the g do you actually read what is posted?
...

well shaw and gnome lets have some of your counter arguments with the scientific evidence to support it. Chapter and verse if you don't mind. Interesting how you twist the argument.


Are you sure you want to tie your colours to this particular mast?

All I have ever said on this thread is that I am unsure whether stunning is any less painful than cutting the throat in a proper and controlled way. That view is backed up by articles I have posted and by the experience of others. I have never said that I am sure either way but have pointed out that anyone who eats meat has no right to condemn the slaughter methods of others. Slaughter is slaughter. It all causes pain. If that upsets your sensibilities then give up meat. But don't shoot the messenger.

DtG