Jump to content

Robin-H

Members
  • Content Count

    3,900
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Robin-H

  • Rank
    Registered User

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I think I have made my opinion quite clear in numerous comments on this thread. Wherever possible, pain and suffering should be minimised.
  2. Haha no I didn’t. Read the blinking comment! I was saying it doesn’t make sense to say that, so I was saying the exactly opposite.
  3. A 42m radius area vs a 1m2 area.. Only half have a less then 20m accuracy. The WhatThree Words would appear to be able to pinpoint a location much more accurately.
  4. I side with the RPSCA and the British Veterinary Association, as they are both well positioned to have an informed and well rounded view on this matter. They have both been petitioning the government to end non stun slaughter, which they say results in animals suffering significant pain and distress. Note that the RSPCA and the BVA aren't saying 'well the animals are suffering anyway, so it doesn't matter if they suffer a bit more, so lets just leave it'. I also don't think their reason is latent islamophobia.
  5. I'm surprised that people are trying to make that argument (that there is no point trying to minimise suffering). Yes, of course don't eat animals (or eat, drink or use any animal products) if you want to make sure that you personally are not causing any suffering to any animal. It is of course entirely logical, indeed consistent with that view, that you would want to make sure that when animals are killed, it is done with the least suffering possible.
  6. How have these people not already been put in prison for a long time? Selling industrial bleach to people claiming that it cures cancer, aids, autism etc etc.. Beggars belief. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/16/bleach-based-miracle-cure-group-seminar-new-york https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/18/bleach-miracle-cure-uganda-us-pastor-robert-baldwin-sam-little I did find the quote at the end of the article quite amusing - I'm sure I've heard similar things on here from time to time! 'The Guardian asked Mark Grenon why he was peddling a potentially dangerous chemical to residents of New York state under the pretext that it was a miracle cure. He replied by email that “you and your Guardian newspaper are just puppets of the evil players of this world like the Murdoch/Rothschild families!”
  7. Did you read the article? If you did, you'll know it has nothing to do with preventing people getting lost. It is about finding people who are lost to within 1m2 of accuracy. A compass and a map would be irrelevant.
  8. What parts do you disagree with? I suspect some of it comes down to a) not understanding that the majority of halal slaughter uses stunning, and b) having an unrealistic view of how slaughterhouses operate generally.
  9. As I have repeatedly said throughout this thread. I am not against halal. I said that in my very first comment, and I'm reiterating that point now. In bold. I am also not 'pro UK slaughter methods' (I assume by that you mean stunning animals before slaughter, even tho non stun slaughter is also a UK slaughter method). Again, I have repeatedly said in this thread that treatment of animals in slaughterhouses across the board can be abhorrent - it doesn't matter what type of slaughterhouse it is. It has been shown that non stun slaughter does cause greater suffering to animals than if the animals are stunned beforehand. Of course, animals can also suffer in other ways in slaughterhouses, which is why I think (and said right at the start) that slaughterhouses should be tightly regulated, with regular inspections and gradings, CCTV, etc etc to ensure that suffering to animals is minimised wherever possible. That includes how long they have travelled to the abattoir, how they travelled, where they are kept, how they are handled, and the method of slaughter. If one method is found to cause more suffering than another, it shouldn't be allowed, just like if one method of transportation caused more suffering than other, that shouldn't be allowed either. I don't eat red meat (beef, lamb, pork, veal etc). I sometimes eat (free range) chicken and fish. Chickens are killed by gas.
  10. Haha where have I said that! Don't put words in my mouth please.
  11. I am sure a lot of people hypocritically use halal slaughter to criticise islam. It is also possible to want to minimise the suffering of animals and understand that one achievable method of doing that would be to make sure that abattoirs use methods that are proven to cause the least suffering possible. I believe that it is not ok to just say 'animal slaughter is cruel regardless, so it doesn't matter how it's done, there's no point trying to minimise suffering'.
  12. I am not criticising other religions. You will not be able to find a single post of mine in this thread where I have criticised Islam or Judaism, indeed of the two ritual practices I have more than once defended Islam, as halal meat is stunned pre slaughter in the vast majority of cases. I care about animal welfare. Saying that because both cause suffering to animals there is no point trying to minimise suffering where possible is a nonsensical, and quite frankly quite cruel, argument.
  13. It has already apparently potentially saved lives. The emergency services can pinpoint an exact location, rather than just knowing 'in a wood somewhere'...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.